What does "Church" mean to you?

[SteveVH]

That’s an interesting question. To me it’s any place I happen to be.

Your friend,
Sufjon

That’s nice.

 

[SteveVH]

Isn’t the very fact that we’re no longer talking about definitions but etymologies suggesting that we’re entering the realm of the unnecessarily technical? In common English speech, “denomination” means any religious group, Catholic or no. So Catholics railing against the word remind me of the ever-so-annoying habit of some atheists who refuse to capitalize the word “God” to make an impudent point about their disbelief in Him. Why can’t we just all follow universal - dare I say catholic - usage, recognizing that it says nothing for or against the rightness of particular groups?

Because the fact that the Catholic Church is the original from which all others divided is central to the Church’s identity. This cannot be said about any other church on earth, so it is an important distinction and one which we will insist on defending.

Of course the truth matters. It matters tremendously, in fact so much that, as compelling as the notion of union with Rome may be, I have not joined the Catholic Church… since I do not believe it is true! I’m a bit baffled why you seem to be speaking against acting according to your best judgement. I mean obviously, in the cosmic level, only God’s opinions matter and ours are worthless. But down here on Earth, we are wandering about in the dark with our own sinful eyes - in the first person, not the third person. And yet from that perspective we must attempt to find the Second Person.

Bran, I’m sorry you feel that way about the CC. When you say it is not true do you mean the whole thing, even its authority to decide the canon of Sacred Scripture?

As your own Catechism says: *Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking. ***(CCC 1777) **

Yes, it is speaking of one aspect of our being, our conscience. We are are taught to listen to our conscience, but just as importantly, we are taught to inform our conscience by learning and adhering to the teachings of the Church. An informed conscience is a sure guide, an uninformed conscience is very dangerous.

Now I’ve naturally terribly less prudence than I ought to, sinner that I am. But so do we all.

Amen to that. The one thing in which we can claim unity is in our sin. But I’ll be you that, being Catholic, I feel a lot more guilty than you do.

 

[SteveVH]

One Body = not a specific church but the collection of ALL believers.

One Spirit = the Holy Spirit

One faith = in Jesus the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

One bapatism = of the Holy Spirit;

Lu 3:16 John answered, saying to all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.

Notice there are two baptisms. Only one saves: the one Jesus does.

Where are you finding your definitions? You are saying that “One Body” really means a divided body and that baptism has nothing to do with Christ’s final command to His Church to “Go out and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

Can you explain? Thanks.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Because the fact that the Catholic Church is the original from which all others divided is central to the Church’s identity. This cannot be said about any other church on earth, so it is an important distinction and one which we will insist on defending.

Sorry but I don’t at all see how you addressed my point there. Let’s say for the sake of argument that I agree - the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and is inherently different from protestant bodies. But don’t we still need a word in our lexicons to describe religious organizations in general? If we can’t use “denomination”, then all I can think of are extremely awkward masterpieces of circumlocution such as “grouping of religious people with common doctrine”. But I guess I’m open to suggestions…

Bran, I’m sorry you feel that way about the CC. When you say it is not true do you mean the whole thing, even its authority to decide the canon of Sacred Scripture?

Hm. Well of course it’s debatable whether the Church which decreed the Canon back in the day is coextensive with the Church which Benedict XVI is vicaring today…

Yes, it is speaking of one aspect of our being, our conscience. We are are taught to listen to our conscience, but just as importantly, we are taught to inform our conscience by learning and adhering to the teachings of the Church. An informed conscience is a sure guide, an uninformed conscience is very dangerous.

Very true. And right now my conscience seems to be telling me that the Church whose teachings I should learn and adhere to is quite a bit more than the Roman communion, though it certainly contains it.

The one thing in which we can claim unity is in our sin.

Quite sadly humorous.

 

[elvisman]

Sorry but I don’t at all see how you addressed my point there. Let’s say for the sake of argument that I agree - the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and is inherently different from protestant bodies. But don’t we still need a word in our lexicons to describe religious organizations in general? If we can’t use “denomination”, then all I can think of are extremely awkward masterpieces of circumlocution such as “grouping of religious people with common doctrine”.

Nope.
**I spelled it all out for you in post 18 - which you have yet to address by the way.

**There is the Church - then there are all the others that only teach a partial truth. These are the “denominations”, which I equated to a model of car inmy previous post. You can also compare them to different dollar amounts. **

**A 1, 5, 10 or 20 dollar bill is a denomination of U.S. currency. They may be money - just as a Protestant denomination may be Christian. However, any one of those bills does not represent ALL currency because, individually, they are only a partial representation of that currency as a whole.

 

[Bran_Stark]

Nope.
**I spelled it all out for you in post 18 **- which you have *yet *to address by the way.

There is the Church - then there are all the others that only teach a partial truth. These are the “denominations”, which I equated to a model of car inmy previous post. You can also compare them to different dollar amounts.

A 1, 5, 10 or 20 dollar bill is a denomination of U.S. currency. They may be money - just as a Protestant denomination may be Christian. However, any one of those bills does not represent ALL currency because, individually, they are only a *partial *representation of that currency as a whole.

Oh well, it seems we are just talking past each other then. But let me ask you this. What word do you suggest we use in demographic studies and the like to refer to organized religious bodies which citizens may or may not belong to?

Judas and Jesus are both “men”. Satan and Michael are both “angels”. Hopefully you’ve no quarrel with me saying this. Why is it so much of a stretch to realize that maybe just because you can use the same word to describe the Catholic Church and the various protestant churches, it does not make them morally or intrinsically equivalent?

 

[SteveVH]

Sorry but I don’t at all see how you addressed my point there. Let’s say for the sake of argument that I agree - the Catholic Church is the one true faith, and is inherently different from protestant bodies. But don’t we still need a word in our lexicons to describe religious organizations in general? If we can’t use “denomination”, then all I can think of are extremely awkward masterpieces of circumlocution such as “grouping of religious people with common doctrine”. But I guess I’m open to suggestions…

This has nothing to do with whether one believes the Catholic Church to be the one true Church. It has to do with the fact that it was the original Church. The fact is that it is unique among all Christian Churches. I totally understand what you are saying but it is like being at a large gathering and referring to my father as “one of my relatives”. Would you not agree that a distinction should be made between him and my third cousin?

Hm. Well of course it’s debatable whether the Church which decreed the Canon back in the day is coextensive with the Church which Benedict XVI is vicaring today…

Well, I suppose we could debate whether or not the sky is blue if we chose to do that.

Very true. And right now my conscience seems to be telling me that the Church whose teachings I should learn and adhere to is quite a bit more than the Roman communion, though it certainly contains it.

And which Church would that be?

 

[Publisher]

Well, I think Scripture itself disagrees with your position. "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church".

I** disagree…“You are Peter…and upon the Rock of your confession I will build my Chruch”.**

I believe the Orthodox disagree as well as they also hold an “apostolic” understanding of this verse…but they agree more with the position I hold than with the CC…your “proof text” offers no solution to the issue…did this verse establish the papacy? No…it didn’t.

And what if, in the Church that Christ founded, He meant for us to meet in order to hear His word and eat of His flesh and drink of His blood in the sacrament of the Eucharist? If that is true, is just meeting together sufficient? Would you not agree that there is a truth about Jesus Christ, His identity, His purpose and His mission, and that to deviate from that truth would be to deviate from Christ? Does truth matter?

**For Truth to truly matter…I would have to base my beliefs not on “what if”…I do not base my beliefs on fear of offending God by rejecting an ecclesical community’s claim of being the authentic Church Jesus came to reveal.

Truth is to be lived…it is not a set of dogmas and doctrines…“We see through a glass darkly…but then face to face we shall know…”**

Thanks Publisher, I appreciate your perspective and look forward to your answers.

You are welcome friend.

 

[Bran_Stark]

This has nothing to do with whether one believes the Catholic Church to be the one true Church. It has to do with the fact that it was the original Church. The fact is that it is unique among all Christian Churches. I totally understand what you are saying but it is like being at a large gathering and referring to my father as “one of my relatives”. Would you not agree that a distinction should be made between him and my third cousin?

Why certainly a distinction should be made. But your father’s still your relative. Now I can definitely understand why Catholics don’t go around saying “You really ought to join our denomination”, especially given your notions of ecclesiology. But there are times when we’re doing scholarly comparisons from a neutral standpoint, and the word does fit there.

I can’t say I agree that Rome is “unique among all Christian Churches”, though. There’s another organized claimant to One True Churchhood, over in the East, whose roots are just as ancient.

Well, I suppose we could debate whether or not the sky is blue if we chose to do that.

Hehe. If only the sky were blue, without any gray clouds of doubt and confusion messing up our picture.

And which Church would that be?

The Bride of Christ. The one universal Christian church, to which both you and I belong, and whose existence you deny.

But anyhow, here’s what just happened at my college a few hours back. We protestants were holding an Ash Wednesday service up on the third floor of the chapel, while the Catholics did theirs down below. We could hear them singing through the floor, and thought about the day we could join together in one. Just think - eventually, after enough Internet arguments, unity will come.

 

[Dokimas]

This is inconsistent.

Jesus redeemed ALL of mankind. Every person who has ever lived is living and ever WILL live has been redeemed (paid for). Not all have been or will be saved.

So, by saying that “those whom He has redeemed are members of His Church” - you are stating something that is not *entirely *true. SOME of those who he has redeemed are part of his Church.

Could you provide the verse that says everyone is redeemed?

Jesus died for all sins, however, I’m not sure all are redeemed.

 

[Dokimas]

Where are you finding your definitions? You are saying that “One Body” really means a divided body and that baptism has nothing to do with Christ’s final command to His Church to “Go out and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”.

Can you explain? Thanks.

Luke 3:16 tells us there are two baptisms. Correct?

Which one do you think saves, the one like John did or the one Jesus did?

 

[Carlan]

Could you provide the verse that says everyone is redeemed?

Jesus died for all sins, however, I’m not sure all are redeemed.

True Dokimas,Jesus redeemed all mankind. However all mankind,as individuals, must accept that redemption. We pray!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Publisher]

Luke 3:16 tells us there are two baptisms. Correct?

Which one do you think saves, the one like John did or the one Jesus did?

You sound like a Quaker now.

 

[elvisman]

Could you provide the verse that says everyone is redeemed?

Jesus died for all sins, however, I’m not sure all are redeemed.

Jesus PAID for the sins of the world. THIS is Redemption.
This is not salvation. Final Salvation only comes after enduring to the end and getting into heaven.

1 Tim. 2:4 tells us that God wills the salvation of all. Verse 6 tells us that Jesus gave himself as ransom for all. He paid for the sins of the entire human race.**

 

[elvisman]

Oh well, it seems we are just talking past each other then. But let me ask you this. What word do you suggest we use in demographic studies and the like to refer to organized religious bodies which citizens may or may not belong to?

Judas and Jesus are both “men”. Satan and Michael are both “angels”. Hopefully you’ve no quarrel with me saying this. Why is it so much of a stretch to realize that maybe just because you can use the same word to describe the Catholic Church and the various protestant churches, it does not make them morally or intrinsically equivalent?

**For me to say to you that the Catholic Church is simply a denomination would be saying that it is not the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). It would imply that ALL Christians only possess a partial truth, which is not the case. **

Given the definitions of denomination that I presented, for the Church to be the fullness of Christ who is Truth itself (John 14:6), it cannot be a simple denomination.

 

[Nicea325]

For me to say to you that the Catholic Church is simply a denomination would be saying that it is not the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). It would imply that ALL Christians only possess a partial truth, which is not the case.

**Given the definitions **of denomination that I presented, for the Church to be the fullness of Christ who is Truth itself (John 14:6), it cannot be a simple denomination.

Amen!

 

[Dokimas]

You are equating the Baptism of John with the Christian water Baptism using the Trinitarian formula? Are you saying that the water Baptism that Jesus Prescribed* ISN’T* as important as the one that you call “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”?

Tell me - what is the difference between the two?

I’m saying, according to John, the Baptism of Jesus isn’t by water but the Holy Spirit.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The “Truth” which was revealed to Peter and the Apostles by Jesus Christ and is exemplified in Sacred Scripture. Was given to the Catholic Church as a Blessing.

Not one iota of the Truth shall ever fail us. By the fruits this knowledge bears in our soul, we come to understand what we don’t understand, and that is the Truth. And those who truly love the Lord belong to the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ because they are seeking God and the Truth.

All that which is not directed to the Glory of Christ the King is false. And a lie is the lie.

We don’t need to look for God, or wonder how to reach Him. He is within Us through the Supernatural bond at Baptism. And when the clarity is dulled through the natural state of original sin and the State of Grace becomes in jeopardy. Well we go to Confession and Communion which are Blessings of the Church by Christ.

The path of clarity is the teaching of the Church. And the path to heaven is Gods commandments and Scripture which teachs detachment of this world which is nothing but vanity. But there also is the Cross. So its just as Christ said; “Pick up your Cross, and Follow Me”.

So here we are serving the Lord by His will. And we are living by His Mercy and Love only, to do His will. And all else is a lie.

Now you can belong anywhere you like, but I can’t pretend to know if the Truth is there.

I can’t remember which Pope made the statement, but he pretty much summed it up, “We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not.” We do know who the non-believers and heretics are.

Anyway I don’t worry “to much” about Christians or believers. Now, the straight out non-believers who know the truth? I actually pray for them, and that is the Truth!

God Bless, Gary

 

[elvisman]

I’m saying, according to John, the Baptism of Jesus isn’t by water but the Holy Spirit.

And, according to the Gospel of John, the Apostle, Jesus said that it was of water AND spirit (John 3:5).

You have to take all the Scriptures in CONTEXT. They cannot contradict each other - they MUST harmonize with one another.

 

[Publisher]

And, according to the Gospel of John, the Apostle, Jesus said that it was of water AND spirit (John 3:5).

You have to take all the Scriptures in CONTEXT. They cannot contradict each other - they MUST harmonize with one another.

In this passage from John you quote…those of us who do not believe in regenerational water baptism…“unless a man is born of water(a natural birth) and Spirit(a spiritual birth) he cannot enter into the…”

Jesus was discussing being “born anew”…“how can a man enter again into his mother’s womb…”

I know since you believe in water baptismal regeneration…this explanation won’t do…but that is the explanation concerning this verse often misused to support water baptism…it doesn’t discuss water baptism at all…I agree with you…CONTEXT is everything…and should be read in context with this passage.