Your thoughts please

[PJM]

=charlesby;12040882]There is one church of God, one church of the firstborn - bearing in mind the Greek word ekklēsia means congregation rather than the more politicized “church” - but many synagogues of Satan (Rev 2:9 as the term was applied to false Jews).

By extension there can be congregations of Satan or churches of Satan where God is not worshiped. I would apply this term to sundry pseudo-protestant churches that have disowned biblical morals.

Politicized churches that own allegiance primarily to men are severely criticized by the apostle on that very basis.1 Cro 3:4.

Anyone that sets up their church as “the one true church” in contradistinction to everyone else’s is in fact proclaiming separation based on human leadership and is already at variance with scripture for that very reason.

The fact is that there are many churches but one Faith, one Baptism and one Lord - Revelations used the term “the church in city X” and if they follow God, they are one with each other because they are one with God, but if they don’t follow God, they are unlikely to be one with each other.

Let me see if we understand your point?

There is But One true God

Who never even one time in the bible; OT or NT, approved, condoned, accepted, or approved of differing faith beliefs other than what HE PERSOANALLY taught; and yet He’s somehow “OK” with the thousnads of man orginated Christian faiths that have recently [the last 400 years] been intoduced to compete with His One Faith and One Church:shrug:

Sorry, but I just don’t see the rational

Mt. 28:16-20 & Mk’ 16:14-15
“And the eleven disciples[READ HERE APOSTLES: SEE MT.10:1-3] :and Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things **whatsoever I have commanded you [MEANS TAUGHT TO, ORDIANED, MANDATED AND COMMANDED OF YOU!:[/COLOR] and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”

God Bless you my friend,** please** aid my understanding.
Patrick.**

 

[charlesby]

Let me see if we understand your point?

There is But One true God

Who never even one time in the bible; OT or NT, approved, condoned, accepted, or approved of differing faith beliefs other than what HE PERSOANALLY taught; and yet He’s somehow “OK” with the thousnads of man orginated Christian faiths that have recently [the last 400 years] been intoduced to compete with His One Faith and One Church,

There are not “thousands of man-originated Christian faiths.” As I said quoting the bible, there is one faith, the faith in Christ and by extension, the faith in God who was one with Christ.

There can be many churches, or congregations more properly put.

A substantial conceptual problem in this area lies in the use of the English word “church” that denotes some kind of association with a particular mode of belief, whereas the biblical ekkesia is a more neutral term referring to a meeting.

Physical, national and international limitations will prevent all the believers from meeting in one place, leading in practice to many congregations arising. Many insist on acknowledgement of strange doctrines before they will welcome you. Many have thrown off any pretense at biblical conformity or belief. Hence denominations arise. Personal issues can intrude too. If you know of unrepentant sinners attending a congregation, it may prevent you from attending.

The phrase used in the biblical to denote an orthodox congregation is “congregation of God.” (ekkesia theos). Such congregations must acknowledge the divine order in 1 Cor 11;3. If your congregation does that, it’s on the way to being orthodox. Not sure that Roman Catholicism does accept 1 Cor 11:3, in fact I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

As far as baptism is concerned, one is baptized into a faith, not a congregation, so not really relevant to discussion, unless you want to link church to faith, but they really are two separate things in the bible, so best not to.

 

[PJM]

=charlesby;12040882]There is one church of God, one church of the firstborn - bearing in mind the Greek word ekklēsia means congregation rather than the more politicized “church” - but many synagogues of Satan (Rev 2:9 as the term was applied to false Jews).

What I posted about truth necessarily being singular per defiend item remains true.

If YOU choose to see “church” as “congregation” it does not alter the FACT that in both the OT “Chosen people” and the NT “Church” /Congregation’ God choose to have ONLY ONE

Jeremiah 7:23 “But this thing I commanded them, saying: Hearken to my voice, and** I will be your God, and you shall be my people**: and walk ye in all the way that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.”

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, [SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [SINGULAR] And I will give to thee the keys [ALL] of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

And this remained the ONLY “church” for nearly 1 Thousand years: 1051 and the Great Eastern Schism.

By extension there can be congregations of Satan or churches of Satan where God is not worshiped. I would apply this term to sundry pseudo-protestant churches that have disowned biblical morals.

Politicized churches that own allegiance primarily to men are severely criticized by the apostle on that very basis.1 Cro 3:4.

Anyone that sets up their church as “the one true church” in contradistinction to everyone else’s is in fact proclaiming separation based on human leadership and is already at variance with scripture for that very reason

So Christ following HIS OWN OT tradition of choosing ONE MAN to rule HIS ONE Chosen people is somehow in eror? PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS FURTHER..

The fact is that there are many churches but one Faith, one Baptism and one Lord - Revelations used the term “the church in city X” and if they follow God, they are one with each other because they are one with God, but if they don’t follow God, they are unlikely to be one with each other.

Here your quoting Eph. 4: 1-7
Again it seems necessary to point out that when this was written the ONLY Church, eas todays Catholic Church. Both historically and biblically provable.

Once again taking your words: “IF they follow God”. The issue then is what DOES it actually mean “TO FOLLOW GOD?” The answer lies in Mt 16: 18-19, John 17:13-22 & Mt. 28:16-20.

God Bless you!
Patrick

 

[charlesby]

What I posted about truth necessarily being singular per defiend item remains true.

If YOU choose to see “church” as “congregation” it does not alter the FACT that in both the OT “Chosen people” and the NT “Church” /Congregation’ God choose to have ONLY ONE

Depends on the context. If the context is whom the congregation belongs to, you are correct that there is one. If the context is where the congregation is, the context is that there are many.

Jeremiah 7:23 “But this thing I commanded them, saying: Hearken to my voice, and** I will be your God, and you shall be my people**: and walk ye in all the way that I have commanded you, that it may be well with you.”

Mt. 16: 18-19 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, [SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [SINGULAR] And I will give to thee the keys [ALL] of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

And this remained the ONLY “church” for nearly 1 Thousand years: 1051 and the Great Eastern Schism.

The papacy as we know it today was the creation of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian.circa 537AD. Before then Rome was just a backwater, a conquered state ruled by the Goths with little political influence compared to that of Byzantium. The bishops under the Ostrogothic Papacy were appointed largely by, or influenced by, the Goths, and neither did they exert any great spiritual power being more politicians than priests. The notion that there was somehow “one political church” centered on Rome before 534 is ridiculous. One of the reasons that Rome was re-conquered by the Byzantines was to imposed a more Byzantium flavoured pope and depose the Gothic line of popes. Many areas were less Romanized. Pope Gregory I was I believe the originator of the pan-European Roman church power, but the Byzantines were hardly subordinate to it.

So I guess what I’m saying is that when Christ said “on this rock I will build my church” he wasn’t actually referring to a unique political structure, and especially not a Roman one, but a unified and spatially diverse spiritual structure spread over multiple congregations.

 

[Irishgal49]

If "Truth: exist, it MUST be singular.

So there can be but One True Church

Why is your church the one? Or why is it not the One?

God Bless you,
Patrick

I don’t have a church. So I guess I don’t have to worry about that. I think that Catholics focus on that (probably rightly so) but most Protestants I know don’t really see it that way–more as a general Christian faith being “the one” true way to God. I guess it will be interesting to see what others have been told or think on this question.

 

[PJM]

=charlesby;12043832]There are not “thousands of man-originated Christian faiths.” As I said quoting the bible, there is one faith, the faith in Christ and by extension, the faith in God who was one with Christ.

My friend, we must have a differing understanding of what “One” actually means? So you and ALL other Protestant competing Faiths beloeve all and everything we Catholics do:shrug:

There can be many churches, or congregations more properly put.

A substantial conceptual problem in this area lies in the use of the English word “church” that denotes some kind of association with a particular mode of belief, whereas the biblical ekkesia is a more neutral term referring to a meeting.

FROM STONGS CONCORDENCE
"Result of search for “church”:
1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):–assembly, church.

1. episkopos ep-is’-kop-os from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):–bishop, overseer.
2. kubernesis koo-ber’-nay-sis from kubernao (of Latin origin, to steer); pilotage, i.e. (figuratively) directorship (in the church):–government.
3. Sion see-own’ of Hebrew origin (6726); Sion (i.e. Tsijon), a hill of Jerusalem; figuratively, the Church (militant or triumphant):–Sion.
4. sunagoge soon-ag-o-gay’ from (the reduplicated form of) 4863; an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish “synagogue” (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:–assembly, congregation, synagogue."

SORRY, BUT I DON’T FIND YOUR DEFINATION HERE:shrug:

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[Publisher]

One of the difficulties Catholics and Protestants have in discussing “church” is each use the same word, but mean different things.

To a Catholic it appears that the organizational structure, the “business” of running such a large organization in that this organization with paid hierarchy and ministry, whether they are paid by food and lodging with a stipend or a “salary” IS the Church…and that the “business” organization is the One True Church.

Protestants don’t see the organization they belong to as “The Church”, but an organization thru which the Church works…not all of it’s members are members of the Church, but are members on the rolls of a certain organization.

That is one of the reasons Friends traditionally have called their places of worship “Meetinghouses” instead of “church”…Friends don’t “go to church”, we “go to meeting”

The Church meets together in corporate worship, “Where two or three are gathered together…I am in their midst.”

It seems that Catholics have an idea of how a “meetinghouse” is to be organized to be a church and thus in someway a “holy” place…Friends don’t see it that way…brick and mortar, wood and stone, glass and masonry do not make a church…it only makes up a building. Alters and chalices and candles and vestments and incense and what have you are not in and of themselves items which are “holy” to be used “in church”.

The Church is comprised of bone, flesh and blood. In the musical “Godspell” there is a song, “We Can Build A Beautiful City”…one of my favorite songs in the theatrical version.

"Come sing me sweet rejoicing
Come sing me love
We’re not afraid of voicing
All the things
We’re dreaming of
Oh, high and low,
And everywhere we go

We don’t need alabaster
We don’t need chrome
We’ve got our special plaster
Take my hand (Take my hand)
I’ll take you home (I’ll take you home!)
We see nations rise
In each other’s eyes (in each other’s eyes!)"

There’s a story told of one Friend’s Meeting who’s meetinghouse was burned to the ground by the local Christians to keep them from gathering…I guess they thought if the Friends had no building, they couldn’t “go to church”…The Friends met on the charred rubble and held Meeting just the same…we don’t need alabaster…we don’t need wood or stone…because that’s not the church…the Church meets together…people don’t “go to church”…People ARE the Church.

 

[charlesby]

My friend, we must have a differing understanding of what “One” actually means? So you and ALL other Protestant competing Faiths beloeve all and everything we Catholics do

The command of Christ was “believe in me.”

Not “believe in the 7 sacraments, unam sanctum, the 21 ecumenical councils, the Aquinian / scholastic theory of the divine essence and equality of the persons of the Trinity, etc”

It must be quite distracting to be a Catholic. I mean, you’ve got such a lot to learn before you know what to believe. Or is it the case of entrusting oneself to the Pope to sort everything out? Protestants have more simpler beliefs, but even then, Calvinists, Dispensationalists, Anglicans and Lutherans etc just seem to make everything more complicated than it should be.

It seems the way of the world is to make things comple so as to pretend to a superior knowledge. Then a hierarchy becomes needed to guard the gnosis and explain it. Yet, this was not how it was in apostolic times.

FROM STONGS CONCORDENCE
"Result of search for “church”:
1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):–assembly, church.

Ecclesia was a secular Greek term for a public political meeting. See Ecclesia. It had no religious connotation originally other than the State and so was a functional term, rather than a philosophical term, which is what it has now become.

In apostolic times the meeting was open to all. See 1 Cor 14.

 

[benhur]

Let me see if we understand your point?

There is But One true God

Who never even one time in the bible; OT or NT, approved, condoned, accepted, or approved of differing faith beliefs other than what HE PERSOANALLY taught; and yet He’s somehow “OK” with the thousnads of man orginated Christian faiths that have recently [the last 400 years] been intoduced to compete with His One Faith and One Church:shrug:

Sorry, but I just don’t see the rational

Mt. 28:16-20 & Mk’ 16:14-15
“And the eleven disciples[READ HERE APOSTLES: SEE MT.10:1-3] :and Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you [MEANS TAUGHT TO, ORDIANED, MANDATED AND COMMANDED OF YOU!:[/COLOR] and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world”

God Bless you my friend,** please** aid my understanding.
Patrick.There is nothing new under the sun. What is happening today has happened for quite a while, way before Luther. He allowed for there to be Sadducees, Pharisees, essenes and a few others. He allowed the twelve tribes, Israel to split into two .Yep, not His perfect will but He was not flustered. He did not fail on His promises then nor now .The covenants achieve according to His good will. So I say even with our fractures there is much unity (and I don’t mean in one or just in one denomination) and the bride will be presented on time. You want to call her Roman catholic, OK, but those names ( denominations) will fall by the wayside, along with faith and hope.

 

[benhur]

My friend, we must have a differing understanding of what “One” actually means? So you and ALL other Protestant competing Faiths beloeve all and everything we Catholics do:shrug:

There can be many churches, or congregations more properly put.

FROM STONGS CONCORDENCE
"Result of search for “church”:
1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):–assembly, church.

1. episkopos ep-is’-kop-os from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):–bishop, overseer.
2. kubernesis koo-ber’-nay-sis from kubernao (of Latin origin, to steer); pilotage, i.e. (figuratively) directorship (in the church):–government.
3. Sion see-own’ of Hebrew origin (6726); Sion (i.e. Tsijon), a hill of Jerusalem; figuratively, the Church (militant or triumphant):–Sion.
4. sunagoge soon-ag-o-gay’ from (the reduplicated form of) 4863; an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish “synagogue” (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:–assembly, congregation, synagogue."

SORRY, BUT I DON’T FIND YOUR DEFINATION HERE:shrug:

God Bless you,
Patrick

That a meeting has a president or secretary does not alter that it is primarily a "meeting’’. Actually one of the earliest fathers refers not to a priest holding the meeting (what some call mass) but a “president”.

 

[almostadummy]

Let me see if we understand your point?

There is But One true God

Who never even one time in the bible; OT or NT, approved, condoned, accepted, or approved of differing faith beliefs other than what HE PERSOANALLY taught; and yet He’s somehow “OK” with the thousnads of man orginated Christian faiths that have recently [the last 400 years] been intoduced to compete with His One Faith and One Church:shrug:

Sorry, but I just don’t see the rational

Mt. 28:16-20 & Mk’ 16:14-15
"And the eleven disciples[READ HERE APOSTLES: SEE MT.10:1-3] :and Jesus coming,

God Bless you my friend,** please** aid my understanding.
Patrick.

Well it seems that John Paul Jackson – has a better understanding of the Keys to the kingdom of heaven-- than – other people who “feel” that they are called into christ’s ministry- and he even has signs and wonders following –

This should “aid-your-understanding” we will all pray 4 you

Dreams & Mysteries - The Mystery of the Keys

youtu.be/1y3eZYLwI6w

 

[PJM]

=Publisher;12051058]One of the difficulties Catholics and Protestants have in discussing “church” is each use the same word, but mean different things.

To a Catholic it appears that the organizational structure, the “business” of running such a large organization in that this organization with paid hierarchy and ministry, whether they are paid by food and lodging with a stipend or a “salary” IS the Church…and that the “business” organization is the One True Church.

Protestants don’t see the organization they belong to as “The Church”, but an organization thru which the Church works…not all of it’s members are members of the Church, but are members on the rolls of a certain organization.

That is one of the reasons Friends traditionally have called their places of worship “Meetinghouses” instead of “church”…Friends don’t “go to church”, we “go to meeting”

The Church meets together in corporate worship, “Where two or three are gathered together…I am in their midst.”

It seems that Catholics have an idea of how a “meetinghouse” is to be organized to be a church and thus in someway a “holy” place…Friends don’t see it that way…brick and mortar, wood and stone, glass and masonry do not make a church…it only makes up a building. Alters and chalices and candles and vestments and incense and what have you are not in and of themselves items which are “holy” to be used “in church”.

The Church is comprised of bone, flesh and blood. In the musical “Godspell” there is a song, “We Can Build A Beautiful City”…one of my favorite songs in the theatrical version.

"Come sing me sweet rejoicing
Come sing me love
We’re not afraid of voicing
All the things
We’re dreaming of
Oh, high and low,
And everywhere we go

We don’t need alabaster
We don’t need chrome
We’ve got our special plaster
Take my hand (Take my hand)
I’ll take you home (I’ll take you home!)
We see nations rise
In each other’s eyes (in each other’s eyes!)"

There’s a story told of one Friend’s Meeting who’s meetinghouse was burned to the ground by the local Christians to keep them from gathering…I guess they thought if the Friends had no building, they couldn’t “go to church”…The Friends met on the charred rubble and held Meeting just the same…we don’t need alabaster…we don’t need wood or stone…because that’s not the church…the Church meets together…people don’t “go to church”…People ARE the Church.

For your edification here from our Catholic catechism is the defination for “church”

1181 A church, “a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful - this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial.” In this “house of God” the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.

Patrick

 

[Irishgal49]

If "Truth: exist, it MUST be singular.

So there can be but One True Church

Why is your church the one? Or why is it not the One?

God Bless you,
Patrick

Why must it be singular? God is beyond our comprehension so how do we know that truth isn’t in a billion pieces and we find bits of it in many things and people?

 

[PJM]

=benhur;12051548]That a meeting has a president or secretary does not alter that it is primarily a "meeting’’. Actually one of the earliest fathers refers not to a priest holding the meeting (what some call mass) but a “president”.

Really:shrug:

Where might one find this term in the New Testament?

God Bless you,

Are you aware friend of the “One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible” Allow me to share it with you. [caps are used for emphasis, NOT shouting here]

**Never-Ever
Can, May or DOES One
Verse, passage or teaching
Have the Power or Authority To
Make Void; invalidate or override Another
Verse, passage or teaching

Were this even the slightest possibility [ITS NOT], it would render the bible as worthless to teach or learn ones faith.**

God Bless you,
Patrick

 

[PJM]

=charlesby;12051384]The command of Christ was “believe in me.”

Not “believe in the 7 sacraments, unam sanctum, the 21 ecumenical councils, the Aquinian / scholastic theory of the divine essence and equality of the persons of the Trinity, etc”

It must be quite distracting to be a Catholic. I mean, you’ve got such a lot to learn before you know what to believe. Or is it the case of entrusting oneself to the Pope to sort everything out? Protestants have more simpler beliefs, but even then, Calvinists, Dispensationalists, Anglicans and Lutherans etc just seem to make everything more complicated than it should be.

It seems the way of the world is to make things comple so as to pretend to a superior knowledge. Then a hierarchy becomes needed to guard the gnosis and explain it. Yet, this was not how it was in apostolic times.

Ecclesia was a secular Greek term for a public political meeting. See Ecclesia. It had no religious connotation originally other than the State and so was a functional term, rather than a philosophical term, which is what it has now become.

In apostolic times the meeting was open to all. See 1 Cor 14.

And WHY pray tell was that? BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO CONVERT ALL TO WHAT GOD DID IN THE OT:

ONE GOD
HAVING ONLY ONE FAITH
THROUGH ONE CHOSEN PEOPLE

CHRIST FOLLOWING HIS OWN TRADITION
ONE GOD
WITH ONLY ONE SET OF FAITH BELIEFS AND NOW IN AND THROUGH ONE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Christianly can ONLY be “one” under One set of faith beliefs and through one Church

Strongs concordence from GREED for “church”
Strong’s Greek Lexicon Search Results

Result of search for “church”:
1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):–assembly, church.

1. episkopos ep-is’-kop-os from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):–bishop, overseer.
2. kubernesis koo-ber’-nay-sis from kubernao (of Latin origin, to steer); pilotage, i.e. (figuratively) directorship (in the church):–government.
3. Sion see-own’ of Hebrew origin (6726); Sion (i.e. Tsijon), a hill of Jerusalem; figuratively, the Church (militant or triumphant):–Sion.
4. sunagoge soon-ag-o-gay’ from (the reduplicated form of) 4863; an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish “synagogue” (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:–assembly, congregation, synagogue
   AMEN!

 

[Irishgal49]

Interesting comments. Isn’t very convincing but good to see the variety of comments.

 

[benhur]

Really:shrug:

Where might one find this term in the New Testament?

God Bless you,

Are you aware friend of the “One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible” Allow me to share it with you. [caps are used for emphasis, NOT shouting here]

**Never-Ever
Can, May or DOES One
Verse, passage or teaching
Have the Power or Authority To
Make Void; invalidate or override Another
Verse, passage or teaching

Were this even the slightest possibility [ITS NOT], it would render the bible as worthless to teach or learn ones faith.**

God Bless you,
Patrick

Ok get you point,the father is not as authoritative. So now does the bible say anything about any ecclesia meeting. Yes but not sure it says much and does not say about any presiding. So actually the father does not contradict any scripture. There is nothing in scripture that says that one who presides over a meeting, a Sunday gathering, like the mass can not be called a “president”.

 

[benhur]

For your edification here from our Catholic catechism is the defination for “church”

1181 A church, “a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful - this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial.” In this “house of God” the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.

Patrick

thank you.your definition is of a building. It has almost no relation to the original intent or nt meaning,except that the real church can have meetings in your church,as well as any other building,or outdoor area or home.

 

[benhur]

My friend, we must have a differing understanding of what “One” actually means? So you and ALL other Protestant competing Faiths beloeve all and everything we Catholics do:shrug:

There can be many churches, or congregations more properly put.

FROM STONGS CONCORDENCE
"Result of search for “church”:
1577. ekklesia ek-klay-see’-ah from a compound of 1537 and a derivative of 2564; a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):–assembly, church.

1. episkopos ep-is’-kop-os from 1909 and 4649 (in the sense of 1983); a superintendent, i.e. Christian officer in genitive case charge of a (or the) church (literally or figuratively):–bishop, overseer.
2. kubernesis koo-ber’-nay-sis from kubernao (of Latin origin, to steer); pilotage, i.e. (figuratively) directorship (in the church):–government.
3. Sion see-own’ of Hebrew origin (6726); Sion (i.e. Tsijon), a hill of Jerusalem; figuratively, the Church (militant or triumphant):–Sion.
4. sunagoge soon-ag-o-gay’ from (the reduplicated form of) 4863; an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish “synagogue” (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:–assembly, congregation, synagogue."

SORRY, BUT I DON’T FIND YOUR DEFINATION HERE:shrug:

God Bless you,
Patrick

Pat,which is missing for I thought you both had ecclesia right.

 

[Publisher]

For your edification here from our Catholic catechism is the defination for “church”

1181 A church, “a house of prayer in which the Eucharist is celebrated and reserved, where the faithful assemble, and where is worshipped the presence of the Son of God our Savior, offered for us on the sacrificial altar for the help and consolation of the faithful - this house ought to be in good taste and a worthy place for prayer and sacred ceremonial.” In this “house of God” the truth and the harmony of the signs that make it up should show Christ to be present and active in this place.

Patrick

The definition is wrong…“church building” may be a house of prayer…a meetinghouse can definitely be…but the Church is not comprised of wood, stone, marble, gold, silk and brocade, but of fragile human flesh and bone…The House of God exists within people, A Holy Nation has no geographical borders…God is active among His People when they gather, be it on charred rubble, on a mountain top, in the sewers and catacombs of Rome, He has “finished” with Temples and buildings of stone…He now resides in Temples of flesh and blood and bone.