Use of the word "Church"

[janman55]

I am no biblical scholar so this question may seem very simplistic. There is much debate concerning the “Rock”, which I believe clearly demonstrates our Lord was referring to Simon Peter. He then says upon which He will build His Church. I’m not familiar anywhere in Scripture prior to this statement where the word “Church” is used.

The use of the word Church and what God intended to build certainly causes as much confusion as who the Rock is. The Catholic Encyclopedia has a very long explanation of the variances of the use of the word, but somwhat summarizes in this fashion…

As signifying the Church, the word Ecclesia is used by Christian writers, sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a more restricted sense.

• It is employed to denote all who, from the beginning of the world, have believed in the one true God, and have been made His children by grace. In this sense, it is sometimes distinguished, signifying the Church before the Old Covenant, the Church of the Old Covenant, or the Church of the New Covenant. Thus St. Gregory (Epp. V, ep. xviii ad. Joan. Ep. Const., in P. L., LXXVII, 740) writes: “Sancti ante legem, sancti sub lege, sancti sub gratiâ, omnes hi . . . in membris Ecclesiæ sunt constituti” (The saints before the Law, the saints under the Law, and the saints under grace – all these are constituted members of the Church).
• It may signify the whole body of the faithful, including not merely the members of the Church who are alive on earth but those, too, whether in heaven or in purgatory, who form part of the one communion of saints. Considered thus, the Church is divided into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant.
• It is further employed to signify the Church Militant of the New Testament. Even in this restricted acceptation, there is some variety in the use of the term. The disciples of a single locality are often referred to in the New Testament as a Church (Revelation 2:18; Romans 16:4; Acts 9:31), and St. Paul even applies the term to disciples belonging to a single household (Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1-2). Moreover, it may designate specially those who exercise the office of teaching and ruling the faithful, the Ecclesia Docens (Matthew 18:17), or again the governed as distinguished from their pastors, the Ecclesia Discens (Acts 20:28). In all these cases the name belonging to the whole is applied to a part. The term, in its full meaning, denotes the whole body of the faithful, both rulers and ruled, throughout the world (Ephesians 1:22; Colossians 1:18). It is in this meaning that the Church is treated of in the present article. As thus understood, the definition of the Church given by Bellarmine is that usually adopted by Catholic theologians: “A body of men united together by the profession of the same Christian Faith, and by participation in the same sacraments, under the governance of lawful pastors, more especially of the Roman Pontiff, the sole vicar of Christ on earth” (Coetus hominum ejusdem christianæ fidei professione, et eorumdem sacramentorum communione colligatus, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum et præcipue unius Christi in Terris vicarii Romani Pontificis. – Bellarmine, De Eccl., III, ii, 9). The accuracy of this definition will appear in the course of the article.
  Given this explanation of what is believed to the be the use of word “Church” how could anyone argue that the multiplicity of churches under varying creeds, leaders, etc… is anywhere close to what God intended when He prayed that we would remain united? (I may have overstated the case here but…)

 

[cazayoux]

… how could anyone argue that the multiplicity of churches under varying creeds, leaders, etc… is anywhere close to what God intended when He prayed that we would remain united?

I honestly don’t know.
My guess is self-proclaimed knowledge/understanding of scripture allows them to ignore the obvious within.

michel

 

[TOME]

Janman55,

I don’t have an answer for you directly, however, I think you should approach this as a question of ecclesiology rather than a matter of straight scripture studies. I would also suggest that you focus on the “Petrine Ministry” of the Bishop of Rome. It seems the role of the Pope is at the heart of the problem especially when it comes to the relationship of the Eastern and Western traditions of the Church (Universal).

 

[Mystophilus]

He then says upon which He will build His Church. I’m not familiar anywhere in Scripture prior to this statement where the word “Church” is used.

Well, εκκλησια is used repeatedly throughout the Greek OT. The word is derived from καλεω, the verb ‘call’, and refers to any convocation.

Given this explanation of what is believed to the be the use of word “Church” how could anyone argue that the multiplicity of churches under varying creeds, leaders, etc… is anywhere close to what God intended when He prayed that we would remain united? (I may have overstated the case here but…)

The current situation is actually more in accordance with the OT usage: the Church is then represented by the gathering of the people of God, wheresoever they may be.

However, your point that there are definite, and frequently hostile divisions amongst the people of God is a very good one. I doubt that such a group could be called together peacefully, even were room found for 2 000 000 000 people to sit together. The divisions run too deep.

Unfortunately, this is not likely to change soon. Most churches, or, more accurately, most church leaders, who claim that they want unity actually go on to demonstrate that their idea of unity is for everyone else to bow to them. Naturally enough, this is not persuasive to the others.

Personally, I think that fora like this have a much better chance of being the ecumenical (i.e., world-wide) unity of the Church, just so long as people can try to be considerate and respectful towards those who believe differently.

 

[thistle]

How about it being possible that the name “the Catholic Church” (Greek: katholikos ekklesia) developed from Acts 9:31 “the Church throughout all” (Greek: ekklesia kath olos).

 

[janman55]

I apologize for not forming my question clearly but Mystophilus, you were more to my point. I was curious about the word Church specifically. There is plenty of discussion/debate as I mentioned about the Petrine Ministry, but little on what is meant by Church. I think the two issues work together and understanding what is meant by Church reinforces the Petrine argument even further.

Doing a simple word search of Church throughout nearly all versions of English Bibles yields no matches prior to Jesus statement concerning Peter. I was curious if the word Jesus used in that statement was atleast slightly different than what had been used elsewhere in Scripture, particularly the OT.

Mystophilus, your response indicates that in Greek the same word was used in the OT?

 

[Bishopite]

Given this explanation of what is believed to the be the use of word “Church” how could anyone argue that the multiplicity of churches under varying creeds, leaders, etc… is anywhere close to what God intended when He prayed that we would remain united? (I may have overstated the case here but…)

I agree and you haven’t overstated the case, in fact Catholics often have to give a plethora of evidence in order to adequately explain what the Church teaches. The Eastern Orthodox also have this problem, yet not to the degree as Catholicism. Protestants also have to overstate their case at times to non-believers.

Jesus only used the word “Church” two times in the gospels, both in the book of Matthew. Mt 16:18…“I will build my Church” and Mt 18:17…if one brother offends another they were to take it “the Church.” Notice it says “the Church” not “churches” reffering to one visible recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership (Magisterium) with universal authority; who claims such an authority but that of the Catholic Church.

Jesus didn’t say “Churches” as though He were creating or building a subdivsion, nor did Jesus imply He would build and invisible “Church” made up of competing groups as we see from non-Catholic Christian Churches; indeed, this is a blueprint for chaos. Functionally speaking, only the Catholic Church fits the discription of “one Church” being visible, universal, authoritative and having apostolic authority.