Added to the Church

It's so simple, Singer. It existed when Christ established it as He said He would in Matthew 16:18! Actually, the "birthday" for the church is considered to be Pentecost, when the holy Spirit came to enlighten all of the apostles, who were the "charter clergy" of this new church, but all Christians who were followers of Christ at the time.

So, we start out with a "community of believers" which is the church.

History shows that this is the same church, starting from Pentecost to about AD 110, when the title of "Catholic" which means universal, was attached as an amplification to the title of "church." So, we had the Catholic Church by title by Ignatious, yet it is the same church as Christ established!

If you doubt that, show me the true church that Christ established other then the Catholic Church, Singer! You simply cannot do that!

I last said:

The Church was in existence before the first Christian ever stepped into the city of Rome! Got it, now?

Which is telling you what, Singer? What does the attachment of an amplification of "Catholic" (given a capitol C since it is a title) to the same church Christ founded?

Is Jesus "Universal"?

Is God "Universal"?

Therefore, I can quite nicely say that both Jesus and God are "Catholic!"

Why does that word, "Catholic," bother you so much, Singer? It is almost as repelling to you as a slip of garlic placed around the neck of Dracula!

The very early infant church was not called "catholic" simply because they were not yet "universal." That term did not apply until the gospel of the Lord was indeed, preached throughout the then known world, including the establishment of local churches there. Then and only then was it considered "universal." And when that title was coined by St. Ignatius, the word "universal" ("catholic") was capitolized, because then the word was now also a title of the Church. Now called the Catholic Church.

The term "Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron, as it expresses both universality and localism all at the same time. It was coined by the Anglicans (The Church of England) to distinguish them from the Church of Rome. They considered themselves as "English Catholics" and the rest of the Church as "Roman Catholic" (other then the Orthodox Church.)

I dislike the term and I eschew it normally.

That is all there is to it, Singer. You cannot isolate the word "Catholic" to apply to your distorted caracature of what you think the "Church of Rome" is which, in reality that old church is a sub-set of "THE CHURCH" that is the Universal Church!

Oh, another thing, the inventers of facial tissues later on gave it the name Kleenix? I don't know, but is an interesting thought...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

But who was considered the first chief "bishop" of the church in Jerusalem? I'll give you a hint--it was NOT Peter.

 

But who was considered the first chief "bishop" of the church in Jerusalem? I'll give you a hint--it was NOT Peter. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, James was the Bishop of Jerusalem so I did a bit of misleading here; I did not intend to indicate that Peter was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

There was a reply I was attempting to give earlier, which I had accidently deleted and thus it did not get posted, so let me go back and quote something from the notes of my Catholic NAB concerning the Council of Jerusalem that we see in Acts 15:1-35. (You will see why I extend this into verse 35 as I go along.)

Anyway, here is what my notes say:

"Some scholars think that this apostolic decree suggested by James, the immediate leader of the Jerusalem community, derives from another historical occasion than the meeting in question. This seems to be the case if the meeting is the same as the one related in Gal 2:1-10. According to that account, nothing was imposed upon Gentile Christians in respect to the Mosaic law; whereas the decree instructs Gentile Christians of mixed communities to abstain from meats sacrificed to idols and from blood-meats, and to avoid marriage within forgidden degrees of consanguinity and affinity (Lv 18), all if which practices were especially abhorrent to Jews. Luke seems to have telescoped two originally independant incidents here: the first a Jerusalem "Council" that dealt with the question of circumcision, and the second a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of diatary laws (see 21:25 where Paul seems to be learning of the decree for the first time)." (Bolding emphasis mine.)

Therefore, there is no conflict as to who was in charge at the Council of Jerusalem to settle the issue of circumcision, where Peter presided. And then later, in a separate decree, James, acting as the bishop of Jerusalem, issued his instructions concerning the gentiles.

Peter was apparently working "at large," not a bishop of any city, until he came to Rome to establish there the See of Rome, and in so doing he became the Bishop of Rome. Paul was there as well, imprisoned, of course, and thus while he is considered a co-founder of the See of Rome with Peter, it is Peter who is it's first bishop.

Here is a little history of the early bishops of Rome, the successors of Peter:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

Acts 9:1,2 says, "Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

The earliest recording we have of a name for a church is the Way.

 

Where I last said:

If you doubt that, show me the true church that Christ established other then
the Catholic Church, Singer! You simply cannot do that!

My NAB says "assembly in the desert." This is obviously not the "church" Christ established per Matthew 16:18, since He was not yet on the scene.

Yes, but not Christ's church, obviously, right, Singer?

No, because the Catholic Church is Christ's Church, and He did not establish it until He came upon the scene, established it, and placed it in a position of authority that was to operate in His new covenant, His blood, death and resurrection closes-out the old covenant, taking the old "Jewish church" with it.

Call it "Moses Church" if you like, or perhaps the "Church of Abraham." Take your pick!

Be careful because you just got done admitting that the Catholic Church's birthday
was Pentecost.

(Did I say that? I don't remember...)

I never said that, Singer, it was your analogy...

Why is it impossible? Can you show me other "Christian gatherings" between Pentecost and, say, AD 1000 that were separate and distinct from the church which has documentation of itself in action, the Catholic Church? You can point to heresies that have come and gone, but you cannot point to a "competing" community that ran parallel, separate from what is the Catholic Church.

When Noah died, righteous as he was, he did not go to heaven! He did go to the "Bosom of Abraham" to await the time when Christ would come to release them after His own death on the cross, the gates of heaven being opened once again. And when YOU die, Singer, and I find you in heaven with me, I can call you "Catholic" as well!

Singer, what does "catholic" mean? "Universal," the last time I looked!

And if God and Jesus are not "universal," then God and Jesus are not God, being limited in definition.

That's cute, Singer, but so far, you have gone completely off the rails in trying to refute what I have said so far. You cannot find another church in history that can trace her history back to New Testament times.

How far back does your particular "Christian community" go back, Singer? I'll bet your "founder" was either a protestor from another Christian community, which in turn, prortested from another, and another, and then to the first protest from the Catholic Church herself.

That Church is the...

ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
Founder: Jesus Christ AD 33
Present earthly caretaker: John Paul II



God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Glory to God on high,
and on earth peace
to men of good will.
We praise you.
We bless you,
We adore you,
We glorify you,
We give you thanks
for your great glory;
Oh Lord God, Heavenly King,
God the Father Almighty!
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten
Son;
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of
The Father;
Who takes away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us:
Who takes away the sins of the world.
receive our prayer;
Who sits at the right hand of the
Father, have mercy on us
For you alone are holy,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone, O Jesus Christ,
are most high,
Together with the Holy Spirit, in the
glory of God the Father.
Amen.

 

DHK, what you are doing is speaking of local/regional churches, which includes the Church at Rome as well. While history is lacking on precisely who established which local church, it is believed to have been done so by those apostles who went out as the first missionaries to preach the gospel in the very early stages of the expansion of THE CHURCH. Did these first local/regional churches preach the same doctrines and beliefs? Yes, but some of them did stray, apparently, into error, Paul having to write letters to some of them to bring them back in line. (Corinthians, Ephesians, etc.) In other words, the apostles that were in place at Pentecost were the "central core" of THE CHURCH.

(Sigh!) Balderdash nonsense, DHK!

Take a close look at the teachings of the early church fathers who wrote before Constantine was ever born:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

Read what they say up until about AD 350, the approximate time of Constantine. Note the "Catholic tone" of their writings!

Agreed, sir, just like the Church in England, a local/regional church, was founded by missionaries to England! They were (gasp!) Catholic, DHK! Catholic, until they separated from Rome by King Henry's refusal to abide by the pope's edict that denied him a divorce, and thus he cause the Church in England to secede from Rome, establishing the Church of England or the Anglican Church. Some of Paul's churches fell into schism too, DKH, now a part of the Orthodox Church.

I am in total agreement here, except that the "church" founded in Rome by Priscilla and Aquilla, as I recall, really got organized when a bishop arrived that could then establish his See there - Peter! (Paul was there too, but in prison.)

DHK, I could "establish" a community of Catholics on some deserted Island, but it is not a regular local church until priests and a bishop arrives to continue it's expansion. Mass cannot be said, the species of bread and wine dannot be consecrated, etc., without a priest, and new priests cannot be ordained unless we have a bishop who can do the job by a "laying on of hands."

Of course! But we call then deacons, priests and bishops today!

That's right! But it is reflected in the historical actions of a church with vibrant authority and expansion, seen in the surviving documents that only the Catholic Church has! The bible does not tell the whole story nor was it ever intended to, otherwise, show me that the bible was to be the "be all that ends all" in the authority of Christianity here on earth. We see Christ establishing a Church that is well documented immediately after the end of the apostolic era, and the only church around who did that is the Catholic Church. All local/regional churches were a part of the whole, called the Catholic Church. They remained that way until and unless they seceded from the mother church, as the Orthodox did, as well as a more complete split at the so called "Protestant Reformation."

We are in total agreement here!

Even in the time of St. Ignatius, who saw only one church in his day, and he named it the Catholic Church?

Are you serious? My "local church" is St. John the Evangelist Catholic Church. It belongs to the local diocese of Pensacola-
Tallahassee. We have a bishop, and about 200 priests in this diocese, all pastors/assistants in the many parishes throughout this diocese.

Oh, I almost forgot! We have "Church services" every Sunday! (Saturday too, and even every day of the week!)

Even while it is organized as you say? Sorry, but I must totally and completely disagree with you here.

To be cohesive and with unity, it must have discipline, produced by a hierarchy of deacons, priests, bishops, archbishops and yes, the pope. That is exactly why Christ made Peter the "Chief of the apostles" being the only one whom Christ "builds His church upon" and to whom he gave the "keys of the kingdom" of awesome authority!

Read Matthew 16:18-19 to get the whole story!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Amen.

 

Is it the Church as establsihed by Jesus Christ?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but it is the perfect answer here!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

I am not here to convert anyone, only to explain my faith where I think it is maligned or mis represented.

Only the holy Spirit can change your heart, Singer...

What is wrong in seeking out the oldest Church in christendom, the one founded by Christ? If that Church were indeed in error, then Christ did not live up to His promise where He said "...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (church)" in Matthew 16:18!

The problem here is, DHK is treating all of these local/regional churches as being somehow "autonomous" from the Church that Christ founded! The Catholic Church in America is every bit a part of the Whole Church - the Universal Church - that happens to be headquartered in Rome. That does not mean that this American Church is ipso facto false and in error, does it?

Singer, I'm playing with you here!

We are wrangling over the definition of "Catholic" insofar as it derivation from the word "universal" and I am simply saying that if Christ or God is not "universal," we have a problem!

Ignatius simply gave the title "Universal" ("Catholic") to the Church in an attempt to demonstrate the universality of the Church in the time period he is speaking of and nothing more! Why are you so frightened of the word "Catholic," Singer? Or has the word taken on a conotation of some evil thing in your upbringing?

Even while I see no adequate refutation of what I amsahing to you, Singer? Such a diversion takes nothing away from my assertions, until and unless you can directly refute them.

OK, that's cool.

I belong to a Church that is called Catholic!

I last said:

Why does that word, "Catholic," bother you so much, Singer? It is almost
as repelling to you as a slip of garlic placed around the neck of Dracula!

OK, that was a low-blow, sorry!

But then if those claims are so repelling, why do I consistently fail to see an adequate refutation of them?

I will be here all day! (I'm fully retired!)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

Even a seven year-old child knows what the Pope doesn't know!

 

Even a seven year-old child knows what the Pope doesn't know!

</font>[/QUOTE]Hummmmmm, if Luther said it, it must be true!

(NOT!)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Is history so lacking?
Perhaps you should get hold of Sir William Ramsey's works and read some of them. Sir William Ramsey set out to find the truth. He was an unbeliever at first, not even believing in the resurrection of Christ. The more he dug, the more evidence he found that compelled him to become a Christian. His archeological works concerning the early churches certainly are not lacking for information. I have some of them.

Sir William Ramsey
DHK

 

Is history so lacking?
Perhaps you should get hold of Sir William Ramsey's works and read some of them. Sir William Ramsey set out to find the truth. He was an unbeliever at first, not even believing in the resurrection of Christ. The more he dug, the more evidence he found that compelled him to become a Christian. His archeological works concerning the early churches certainly are not lacking for information. I have some of them.</font>[/QUOTE]Please don't inflate too much what I said here. We think the Corinthian Churches, were established by Paul and perhaps also Ephesus, and those colonies of Christians in India, perhaps by St. Thomas, and Peter (and Paul) the church at Rome, but we do not have as complete a record as antiquity takes it toll on the evidence. But your recommended for this author is well taken. I never read enough books!

That main point was to discuss the local/regional churches more then their actual local founders. My bringing up the subject of the historical account of their founding was simply an aside on my part...If you eliminate my reference to this, my points are still valid.

Sir William Ramsey
DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]

Sounds like an interesting fellow! I'll have to look into him...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Can one be so naive to think that error would not creep into some of the churches. Of course it would. Paul and the other apostles knew it would. Paul warns about it in Acts 20:28-24. John warns about in 1John 2:19. Peter warns about it in 2Peter 3. Jesus warns about in Matthew 7. Throughout the New Testament various writers have warned us about false doctrine. Paul had to correct the Corinthian church on those that were in that were spreading the false doctrine that there was no resurrection (1Cor.15). Does this take away from the autonomy of this local church? Does this give any evidence that it was under Rome's power? No. Does it give any evidence that a denomination was in place? No.

One of the first errors to creep into the early churches was baptismal regeneration; that doctrine that baptism could save--a doctrine totally unsupportable by the Bible. Then it was only a matter of time that it was logical to conclude that if it was baptism that saves, one should administer it as soon as possibe to make sure everyone would enter heaven. Thus was born the heresy of infant baptism--another false doctrine totally unsupportable by Scripture. You follow the progression of false doctrine throughout history, and you follow the slow formation of the Catholic Church which culminated when Constantine made so-called Christianity a state church. That was the official beginning of Catholicism. It was a progression of heresies apart from the true faith.

You say the apostles were placed in Jerusalem as the central core of the true church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact they stayed in Jerusalem at the cost of disobeying God. The Lord told them in Acts 1:8

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

They were not to stay in Jerusalem. They were to be witnesses in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. Because they failed to obey this command, God forced them to obey it.

8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

God sent a great persecution to scatter the church at Jerusalem, to send them into other lands, as He had commanded them. But the Apostles remained obstinate. When they should have shown leadership, they stayed in Jerusalem. The command to go, was specificall given to them. Not til some time later did they begin to leave Jerusalem as they were commanded. God never intended them to stay in Jerusalem.

When Paul started a church, he remained with them long enought to appoint a pastor that would shepherd that church. The church was autonomous, and accountable only to God.

Acts 14
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Notice there is no Catholic Church here: no hierarchy; no bishops, no deacons--only elders or a pastor in every church. Who was the elder or pastor accountable to? God alone.
DHK

 

Can one be so naive to think that error would not creep into some of the churches. Of course it would. Paul and the other apostles knew it would. Paul warns about it in Acts 20:28-24. John warns about in 1John 2:19. Peter warns about it in 2Peter 3. Jesus warns about in Matthew 7. Throughout the New Testament various writers have warned us about false doctrine. Paul had to correct the Corinthian church on those that were in that were spreading the false doctrine that there was no resurrection (1Cor.15). Does this take away from the autonomy of this local church? Does this give any evidence that it was under Rome's power? No. Does it give any evidence that a denomination was in place? No.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course, Rome was not in a position to do anything, it's Christian community were in hiding, not even with a bishop yet, while it had to exert influence even to the local churches that strayed from the gospel message. So you are "preaching to the choir" here, DHK!

It is one reason that the Church had to establish a strict hierarchal system, almost like in the military, that would hold all local/regional churches in check insofar as the core doctrines were concerned. Therefore, if it is total atonomy you are speaking of, no, that could not exist for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, local bishops had authority, mostly disciplinary in nature, yet even in history, we see them deposed for heresy as well.

So, I'm not sure where you stand here on atonomy, DHK... In my view, it obviously does not work very well, to say the least...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp

I would like to see your take on John 3:5 concerning "water and spirit" spoken of by Christ, as well as 1 Peter 3:21 unless we have tread that path already. But it is worth repeating...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

You say the apostles were placed in Jerusalem as the central core of the true church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact they stayed in Jerusalem at the cost of disobeying God. The Lord told them in Acts 1:8

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

They were not to stay in Jerusalem. They were to be witnesses in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. Because they failed to obey this command, God forced them to obey it.

8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.
4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

God sent a great persecution to scatter the church at Jerusalem, to send them into other lands, as He had commanded them. But the Apostles remained obstinate. When they should have shown leadership, they stayed in Jerusalem. The command to go, was specificall given to them. Not til some time later did they begin to leave Jerusalem as they were commanded. God never intended them to stay in Jerusalem.

When Paul started a church, he remained with them long enought to appoint a pastor that would shepherd that church. The church was autonomous, and accountable only to God.

Acts 14
21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch,
22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

Notice there is no Catholic Church here: no hierarchy; no bishops, no deacons--only elders or a pastor in every church. Who was the elder or pastor accountable to? God alone.
DHK [/QB][/QUOTE]

This following link may duplicate some of the stuff given in the above links, but please pay attention to those early church fathers who spoke of infant baptism, let alone the salvific power of baptism long before Constantine was even born! (About A.D. 350)

Finally, if the Church did fall into error as you say here, then Christ failed to fulfill His promise, that "...the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (church)." (Matthew 16:18)

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -