Added to the Church

[Singer]

Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Catholics admit that their church did not have its namely distinction until
around 110 AD, so what church was the Lord adding to in Acts Chap. 2 ?

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Catholics admit that their church did not have its namely distinction until
around 110 AD, so what church was the Lord adding to in Acts Chap. 2 ?

Oh hogwash, Singer!

What church was it before St. Ignatious first coined the the term "Catholic" to define the universality of the church in that time period? It it were not the Catholic Church, produce it for all of us to see and admire, Singer!

That means that when you study Acts, chapater 2, you realize that there was only one church at that particular time, right?

What was that church the day after?

The day after that?

10 days after that?

1 years after that?

10 years after that?

A.D. 110 when St Ignatius coined the name "Catholic"?

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.

 

[Carson Weber]

It should also be noted that historians such as JND Kelly & Henry Chadwick (both of which are Protestants) report that though Ignatius is the first surviving written use of the qualifier "catholic", the term was not new in Ignatius' day, but well known to his audience.

Heck, we could name the Church "Mamma Margie's Big Pancake Restaurant", and it still wouldn't change the fact that it is ontologically and organically the same Church of the New Testament. Names are just names. The reality is what counts.

 

[Yelsew]

The church, if it has at its core the Christ, cannot be any other church but the Christian church regardless of which faction you agree with. Just because you call the faction of the Christian Church you agree with Catholic, does not make the Christian church Catholic. The Catholic faction teaches certain doctrines and those who adhere to those doctrines are Catholic. The non-catholic factions who are in Truth part of the Christian church do not adhere to several or many of the doctrines the catholics do. That does not separate them from the Church, only from the Catholics. There would be no separation if the Catholics would renounce their false doctrines.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
The church, if it has at its core the Christ, cannot be any other church but the Christian church regardless of which faction you agree with.

What other "faction" are you talking about, Yelsew? Did you really comprehend what I said in my last message?

Show me any other church that could have ran parallel with the only church around that eventually got called "Catholic."

Just because you call the faction of the Christian Church you agree with Catholic, does not make the Christian church Catholic. The Catholic faction teaches certain doctrines and those who adhere to those doctrines are Catholic. The non-catholic factions who are in Truth part of the Christian church do not adhere to several or many of the doctrines the catholics do. That does not separate them from the Church, only from the Catholics. There would be no separation if the Catholics would renounce their false doctrines.

What I said went completely over your head, didn't it, Yelsew?

Go back and look at my initial reply in this thread, Yelsew, and show me in the time slices I provided, any church that existed other then that same church that eventually got called, "Catholic."

And like Carson said, I don't care if St. Ignatius called it "Yo Mamma's Church" it would have been the same Church (and only Church) Christ founded.......unless you can produce the documentation otherwise.

Be my guest, Yelsew...

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)

 

[Singer]

WPutnam,

Hogwash you say ?

Well I've raised hogs and I've presently raise cattle and those of us in this industry
have this favorite terminology that bases itself on the bowel evacuation of the male
gender of the bovine species. It is also a term that is familiar to the Chicago Bulls
Basketball Club. That terminology would be appropriate; used in response to your
statement that went like this:
Show me any other church that could have ran parallel with the only church
around that eventually got called "Catholic."

You're thinking in terms of denomination, Pacman, and God isn't and Jesus wasn't
when he referred to "adding to the church". You contend he was adding to something
that didn't even exist yet.

Speaking of the Chicago Bulls, do they claim that the first basketball bounced in history
was the origin of their Club...? No, they 'd be ridiculous in claiming that and same
goes for your claims.

Your fallacies are unmasked in the fact that those who were added to the church
in Acts 2 never went on to know there was such a thing as a pope, a rosary, never
chanted in a mass, never were baptized as children, never prayed to Mary or a
Saint (there weren't any of those yet either) and they died; never knowing what
a Catholic Church or regererative baptism was. They were simply added to the
church as Christians because they believed Jesus was the Son of God. They were
saved from eternal death with no thanks to the "yet to be'' Catholic Church.

You're wrong, Putnam.



That means that when you study Acts, chapater 2, you realize that there was only one
church at that particular time, right?

Yes, and it sure as hell is real...........wasn't the Catholic Church.

If you can believe that lie, then I'd like to sell you some accumulation of methane
gas out here in my cowyards (in bulk form) that you should consider as gasoline
and cram some of it down your gastank.



Now, do you like MY reasoning ?

 

[Kathryn]

Singer:

From one Christian to another___ "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?" 1 Corinthians 3:16


God Bless

 

[Singer]

Well thanks for the compliment, Kathryn.
I didn't realize you saw that in me.....you're insight is improving !!

Love in Christ,
Singer

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Singer:
Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Catholics admit that their church did not have its namely distinction until
around 110 AD, so what church was the Lord adding to in Acts Chap. 2 ?

It was the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
It may not have had Baptist in the name right away, but it was Baptist in every way. All that believed on Christ were saved. First they were saved. Then they were baptized. Then they were added to the Jerusalem church. It was a church in Jerusalem, the only church in Jerusalem, a Baptistic church in Jerusalem. Believers were baptized and added to the church. Then they continued in the apostles doctrine. They were discipled--fed the Word of God. There was plenty of fellowship, and praising God.
There were no infants that were baptized.
There was no trace of any pope.
There was no hierarchy of priests and bishops.
There were no confessionals.
There were no cathedrals, no pews, no church buildings at all, except for the Temple, which they eventually got kicked out of.
Peter didn't have much standing in this church, though he did preach this one time. It was James that was the pastor (Acts 15:13).

This was a Baptist Church: for all of its members were regenerated and baptized.
This was a Baptist Church: for the Bible was its final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in soul liberty.
This was a Baptist Church: for it was autonomous from all other churches.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in the priesthood of the believer.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed that believer's baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper are the only two ordinances given by the Lord to the church (no such thing as sacraments).
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in separation of church and state.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in an ethical and ecclesiastical separation.

It may not have carried the name Baptist early on. But it definitely was a Baptist Church, (IFB) to be precise.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Great post DHK! Most folks seem to forget when using the word "church" that in most NT circumstances that word is just referring to a local assembly. In this case the assembly was in Jerusalem. A "universal church" was not being thought about at that time because it was all so new and concentrated. Anyway, the word translated church means assembly.

In Christ,
brian

 

[Singer]

Sounds good to me DHK; I get your point.

But if you allow your thoughts to wander back to the scene when the
three thousand were added to the church, there was actually no church
to add to, so that must mean that "Unchurched" was first.....even before
Baptist. In this race to be first on the scene, you'd have to admit that
before those people went to church, they were unchurched (although saved).
Now Jesus didn't ever mention a denomination of His preference. Man has
added that feature since day one...not Jesus. They met in homes which must
have been what Jesus chose for them. (2x2s do that yet today)

Some contend that this ''church'' was the forerunner of the Catholic Church.
Sure.........and my saying "Whoooo Whoooo" means I'm a freight train too..!!

The claim that Catholicism was the only church until 1517 only testifies that
the Dark Ages came to an end when Catholicism was defeated as the only
method of worship.

But then again I could be wrong, because the 2x2 Club I grew up in said that
THEY were first. Shouldn't I believe them........afterall they SAID SO !

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Singer:
Acts 2:47
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Catholics admit that their church did not have its namely distinction until
around 110 AD, so what church was the Lord adding to in Acts Chap. 2 ?

It was the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
It may not have had Baptist in the name right away, but it was Baptist in every way. All that believed on Christ were saved. First they were saved. Then they were baptized. Then they were added to the Jerusalem church. It was a church in Jerusalem, the only church in Jerusalem, a Baptistic church in Jerusalem. Believers were baptized and added to the church. Then they continued in the apostles doctrine. They were discipled--fed the Word of God. There was plenty of fellowship, and praising God.
There were no infants that were baptized.
There was no trace of any pope.
There was no hierarchy of priests and bishops.
There were no confessionals.
There were no cathedrals, no pews, no church buildings at all, except for the Temple, which they eventually got kicked out of.
Peter didn't have much standing in this church, though he did preach this one time. It was James that was the pastor (Acts 15:13).

This was a Baptist Church: for all of its members were regenerated and baptized.
This was a Baptist Church: for the Bible was its final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in soul liberty.
This was a Baptist Church: for it was autonomous from all other churches.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in the priesthood of the believer.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed that believer's baptism by immersion and the Lord's Supper are the only two ordinances given by the Lord to the church (no such thing as sacraments).
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in separation of church and state.
This was a Baptist Church: for they believed in an ethical and ecclesiastical separation.

It may not have carried the name Baptist early on. But it definitely was a Baptist Church, (IFB) to be precise.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Let's see now, what St. Ignatius called it the "First Baptist Catholic Church," right?

Somehow, I simply cannot believe what I am reading here.

You cannot see the fact that the only church around was the same church Ignatius called "Catholic," but protesting that, cannot come up with that mysterious "side church" of you will what was the "true church" and even more mysteriously, was calaled the "First Bapatist Church of Jerusalem."

Simply incredible!

For Singer, you totally and completely failed to answer my assertions, that there was no other church but the same Church Ignatious called "Catholic."

And all I got was a bunch of "broken wind."

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

[Singer]

For Singer, you totally and completely failed to answer my assertions, that there was no other church but the same Church Ignatious called "Catholic."

Bill, those believers had mustered the faith to believe that Jesus was the Son of
God. The church (assembly) that they frequented after the fact had none of the
similarities of today's Catholicism. How could it have....there was no Vatican
to direct it, no local Catholic priest to take confession, there were no masses
offered, no rosary, Peter was not conducting Catholic services anywhere..etc.
How can you say they were Catholic?

Look at this explanation by a prominent Catholic from another board:

The term "catholic" was first used by Ignatius in
110 A.D. to describe a "universal church". Over the years
it became the proper noun Catholic to refer to the
religion that believed in various doctrines. For 1000
years, the Catholic Church was the only "orthodox"
church until the split with the Eastern Orthodox church
occurred in 1054 A.D. due to geographical, cultural, and
religious reasons.

The word ''catholic'' is a verb meaning universal. The adoption of that
term which was then made into a proper noun with the addition of a capital
"C" does not make today's RCC anywhere near saintly. Every piece of paper
that you might blow your nose in does not become a Kleenex. Kleenex is a
proper noun. See the difference?

All facial tissues are not Kleenex.
All catholics are not Catholic.
I'm a catholic.
You're a Catholic.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
Let's see now, what St. Ignatius called it the "First Baptist Catholic Church," right?

Somehow, I simply cannot believe what I am reading here.

You cannot see the fact that the only church around was the same church Ignatius called "Catholic," but protesting that, cannot come up with that mysterious "side church" of you will what was the "true church" and even more mysteriously, was calaled the "First Bapatist Church of Jerusalem."

Simply incredible!

Now you know why I don't put a lot of stock in early church fathers, or in any of the "church fathers" for that matter. Many of them held to various strange doctrines and heresies. Ask Origen? Or if you don't believe in talking to the dead as most Catholics do, you can simply ask Carson. He gave a list of Origen's heretical beliefs once. I don't depend on Ignatius, Origen or any other church fathers; I depend on the Word of God. The church at Jerusalem fits the description of a Baptist church as we know it today--one that is centered around the Word of God; not a church that is centered around a Mass. There is no such animal in the Bible as a Mass.
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:

Where I last said:

For Singer, you totally and completely failed to answer my assertions, that there was no other church but the same Church Ignatious called "Catholic."

Bill, those believers had mustered the faith to believe that Jesus was the Son of
God. The church (assembly) that they frequented after the fact had none of the
similarities of today's Catholicism. How could it have....there was no Vatican
to direct it, no local Catholic priest to take confession, there were no masses
offered, no rosary, Peter was not conducting Catholic services anywhere..etc.
How can you say they were Catholic?

Singer, Who are you talking about here? The early Christians? Of course! In those early days immediately after Pentecost, there was not one Christian in Rome, let alone a "Vatican" you speak of. And what does that have to do with the issue anyway? Suppose Peter had gone to Constantnople instead of Rome? Guess what, Singer, the Holy See today would not be in Rome but in Constantnople! And yes, there was no Rosary, no Stations of the Cross, none of the little traditions that grew up in the church over time. So what? They did not have "Wednesday night prayer meetings" in the Protestant sense either!

Look at this explanation by a prominent Catholic from another board:

The term "catholic" was first used by Ignatius in
110 A.D. to describe a "universal church". Over the years
it became the proper noun Catholic to refer to the
religion that believed in various doctrines. For 1000
years, the Catholic Church was the only "orthodox"
church until the split with the Eastern Orthodox church
occurred in 1054 A.D. due to geographical, cultural, and
religious reasons.

The word ''catholic'' is a verb meaning universal. The adoption of that
term which was then made into a proper noun with the addition of a capital
"C" does not make today's RCC anywhere near saintly. Every piece of paper
that you might blow your nose in does not become a Kleenex. Kleenex is a
proper noun. See the difference?

All facial tissues are not Kleenex.
All catholics are not Catholic.
I'm a catholic.
You're a Catholic.

But if I want to go the the original product called "Kleenex," I have to buy the box that says "Kleenix" on it, don't I?

Can I also say that "Kleenix" is the oldest of that type of product? Sure can!

The analogy fails when we are to look at these two products and see that "Kleenix" in brand is intrincally better then the other brands. And, of course, The Church is not a tangible product but rather an intangable "divine society" of humans, formed into this society by Christ which he called "church."

Forming other societies likened onto the founder of the original society does not a equal make, Singer.

Now, go back and attempt to reply to my original assertions and find me the "true church," the
"true society" that Christ formed which He called "church" that existed in the time periods I suggested until what ever time you wish to stop at, including today, this instant.

Ther is only one church Christ founded, Singer.

And as providence would have it, it is called:

THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH

Now, if you really and truly want to become a full fledged member of this church, lete me know...

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)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
Let's see now, what St. Ignatius called it the "First Baptist Catholic Church," right?

Somehow, I simply cannot believe what I am reading here.

You cannot see the fact that the only church around was the same church Ignatius called "Catholic," but protesting that, cannot come up with that mysterious "side church" of you will what was the "true church" and even more mysteriously, was calaled the "First Bapatist Church of Jerusalem."

Simply incredible!

Now you know why I don't put a lot of stock in early church fathers, or in any of the "church fathers" for that matter. Many of them held to various strange doctrines and heresies. Ask Origen? Or if you don't believe in talking to the dead as most Catholics do, you can simply ask Carson. He gave a list of Origen's heretical beliefs once. I don't depend on Ignatius, Origen or any other church fathers; I depend on the Word of God. The church at Jerusalem fits the description of a Baptist church as we know it today--one that is centered around the Word of God; not a church that is centered around a Mass. There is no such animal in the Bible as a Mass.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Now I know why you will know answer my original assertions - too many roadblocks you wish to place out there that are non sequitur to the discussion.

Oregin is an important person, even in his heresy, because even in his dissentsion against the church, he unwittingly tells the scholars doday what that Church taught! In other words, even in his heresy, he was a window into the doctrines of the Church in his protests!

You could do likewise with Luther, if done carefully, his protests reflect (often in distortion, however) what the Church taught!

BTW, most of the father were bishops in the Catholic Church! Do you think you can interpret the bible better then they can, DHK? Do you claim to have the dove of the holy Spirit in residence on your shoulder, whistering the correct interpretation of the "Word of God" (read Bible) in your ear?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


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

 

[Singer]

Singer, Who are you talking about here? The early Christians? Of course! In those early days immediately after Pentecost, there was not one Christian in Rome, let alone a "Vatican" you speak of. And what does that have to do with the issue anyway?

That has everything to do with the issue, Bill. You claim that this was
the church that evolved into the Catholic Church, yet if you'd have asked anyone present at the time, they would not have said it was either the Catholic Church
or the forerunner of it. They were only believing in Christ as we are asked
to do today; not believing in the Catholic Church as the pillar and truth,
authority etc. etc. If you had preached to them as you do to me, they'd have
given you a blank look. If their simple act of ''believing in Him'' was good enough
for their salvation, then it's good enough for mine.

Their believing got them saved, Bill. They were guaranteed entry into eterna
l life with no more ado. They would have lived out their lives and died; never
hearing of Catholicism. They were not baptized as children, never counted
the rosary or went to a mass, or hailed a Pope ; yet they were saved.They
were not concerned about what church was first now were they?

They gave no attention to what church was better than the rest because there
were NONE to start with. They were just assembling into groups where
there were others present who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah
that was prophesied unto them. Tell me what that has to do with Catholicism....!!!

"The Church is not a tangible product but rather an intangable "divine society" of humans, formed into this society by Christ which he called "church."

Where does it say in the bible that he came to establish a church ?
You'd have to stretch your imagination to gather that idea from the O.T.
My ability to believe in Him has nothing to do with his work in setting up a church.
All of us are able to receive Him through the work of the Holy Spirit that deals
with our hearts. "Confess with the mouth, the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart
that He rose from the dead and ye shall be saved". Romans 10:9

Doing so gives us much joy, release of the power of sin over our lives and the
ability to face death with anticipation.
It's so much simpler than what you project, my friend.

 

[Singer]

P.S.

The wife and I were asked to provide some music at a little community church
out in the sticks of Nebr. on Sunday evening. The ladies provided a nice grillout
with all the salads, pies, desserts, tea and punch....imagine the scene. We were
set up on a flatbed trailer under the cottonwoods surrounded by prairiegrass
pastures and haybales, cattle and coyotes. Fifty or so people were in attendance
and the little kids were performing also along with our hour and a half input.

There were attendees from the local Catholic Church along with some from other
neighboring churches. Many participated with handclaps and "Amens" and the
joy (yes, it's a feeling) of the Lord was present and it inspired my testimony that
we go on in life in spite of sorrow, sickness, death, drought and grasshoppers
(they're bad this year). We will rise on a new day tomorrow and go forth with our
jobs, plant our crops again and do so with inspiration...... because He lives !!

Maybe our performance of my favorite song "Because He Lives" is what sends
chills up my spine..........but the presence of the Lord is obvious. Where two or
more are gathered? Yes, there were Catholics on board and if their hearts were
in tune to the spirit, I hope they got a blessing also.

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
Because He lives, all fear is gone.......
And then I know, He holds the future
And life is worth the living just Because He Lives !!!

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:

Where I last said:

Singer, Who are you talking about here? The early Christians? Of course! In those early days immediately after Pentecost, there was not one Christian in Rome, let alone a "Vatican" you speak of. And what does that have to do with the issue anyway?

That has everything to do with the issue, Bill. You claim that this was
the church that evolved into the Catholic Church, yet if you'd have asked anyone present at the time, they would not have said it was either the Catholic Church or the forerunner of it.

Singer, listen to me reeeeeeeeal closely now:

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

For some reason, you have this hang-up that the "Catholic Church" is only that local church that is in Rome. Nothing could be further from the truth! Notice that I did not say "Roman Catholic" but simply "Catholic." There is a Christian community in Greece that celebrate the Divine Liturgy (Equivelant to the Catholic Mass) as do their Orthodox breathren do, but they are (gulp!) in union with Rome! What does that mean? Simply that Rome happens to be the headquarters for the whole Catholic Church, including these Greeks, who are also called Greek Catholics. They are of the Eastern Rite of holy Church, just as I am a part of the Roman Rite of holy church! And likewise for the other ancient Rites of the Church, each having their own traditions yet preach and teach the same doctrines that encompasses the entire Church with all of her various rites. They all are subject to the successor of Peter, who happens to have his headquarters in Rome.

Had Peter come to Chicago, there would the pope today be!

I tried to paint a picture of what would have happened if Peter never went to Rome but to Constantanople instead. If that were so, then the headquarters for the Church would be in Constantanople today! The Latin/Roman.Western Rite is acaually younger then the church in Jerusalem, but what gives Rome primacy is not it's founding age but where Peter went to establish his principle See!

It was in Rome, Singer!

They were only believing in Christ as we are asked to do today; not believing in the Catholic Church as the pillar and truth,
authority etc. etc. If you had preached to them as you do to me, they'd have given you a blank look. If their simple act of ''believing in Him'' was good enough for their salvation, then it's good enough for mine.

Singer, of course those early Christians were "only believing in Christ," but alas, the "devil is in the details, " isn/t it, Singer? What do you mean by "only believing," sir? Do you think it would include a belief in the discipline in those individuals Christ empowered with the "keys of the kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose," or, in your "cafeteria belief system," believe about Christ only what you want to believe and discard the rest of it?

Their believing got them saved, Bill.

Of course! Including obeying the edicts of those who were in charge of the Church, including:

http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Liturgical/didache.html

Take a good long look at this English translation of what is one of the oldest documents in Christendom (other then the bible, of course) that pretty well spells out what Christians are to do and believe. It is the famous Didache, which some scholars have dated to as early as A.D. 70 which is within the apostolic era!

Take special note to that section that speaks of baptism.

They were guaranteed entry into eternal life with no more ado. They would have lived out their lives and died; never
hearing of Catholicism. They were not baptized as children, never counted
the rosary or went to a mass, or hailed a Pope ; yet they were saved.They
were not concerned about what church was first now were they?

Singer, you have no idea at all if they were baptized as children or not! We believe that they were, especially when we hear of whole "households" beng baptized, which surely would include children, don't you think?

And as for the Rosary, that was a devotion that would come later, as well at the famous Stations of the Cross. What's wrong with those prayers, Singer? Can I not compose a new prayer for myself, call it "Bill's Prayer" or must it be text from the bible, sir? If so, then spontaneous prayers would be out of the question simply because they are not scriptural!

Oh, yes they did have the Mass! It was not called that then, but they did celebrate the Lord's Supper in individual homes in those very early times.

They gave no attention to what church was better than the rest because there
were NONE to start with. They were just assembling into groups where
there were others present who also believed that Jesus was the Messiah
that was prophesied unto them. Tell me what that has to do with Catholicism....!!!

Nonsense, Singer! There was the ONE CHURCH! THERE WERE NTHERS!

That is exactly what I have been trying to tell you! There was one Church at Pentecost, one day after, 10 days afrer, 1 year after, 10 years after (the the spread of Christianity begin to spread, including into Rome), and 100 years after. There were local/regional churches, even Rome, but there was only ONE CHURCH - THE CHURCH!

For a while, the "headquarters" was in Jerusalem with Peter, but Peter did not stay there. Like Paul, he went to where Christianity really needed to be spread to - the "plumb to pick" in evangelization - ROME!

And when Peter went there, he became the first Bishop of Rome by his very presence! And there was his See, once in Jerusalem now in Rome. Had he stayed in Jerusalem, there would be the "Vatican" today!

But he went to Rome.......

And also his successors....

I last said:

"The Church is not a tangible product but rather an intangable "divine society" of humans, formed into this society by Christ which he called "church."

Where does it say in the bible that he came to establish a church ?

(Sigh!) I can't believe I just read that!

No, the bible does say that "He came to establish a church," it just records where He does that very thing!

I post it here:

"...For I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18 Catholic NAB)

You'd have to stretch your imagination to gather that idea from the O.T.

No, but we get the forshadowing of the coming of the Messiah with a new covenant...

My ability to believe in Him has nothing to do with his work in setting up a church.

A strange thing to say, since you believe in Him, yet you draw the line at seeing the need for an authoritive church which He obviously establlished?

It is like saying, "I believe in Christ, but not His church." It that the way it is, Singer?

All of us are able to receive Him through the work of the Holy Spirit that deals
with our hearts.

AMEN TO THAT, Singer! I stand hands and shoulders in agreement with you here!

"Confess with the mouth, the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart
that He rose from the dead and ye shall be saved". Romans 10:9

I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

Doing so gives us much joy, release of the power of sin over our lives and the
ability to face death with anticipation.
It's so much simpler than what you project, my friend.

I suppose it is a matter of prospective and view we all have. All I can say is, I wallowed in confusion in my Protestant days, wondering where the absolute truth may lay. I had to be back to the early history of Christ's Church to find her.

And I find her doctrines far simpler then you seem to think, Singer. For healing and supplication, I can go to Him in the Eucharist; if/when I sin greviously, my conscience and remorse brings me to a priest in the confessional (with a wonderful "cloud-nine" feeling when I leave!); when I am ill, I receive the anointment of holy oils, which in fact, I received this very day (both me and my wife); and in the solitary of my office, home or bedroom, my rosary beads bring great comfort.

I have been a Catholic for about 50 years now, and I cannot express how content I am, in the "simplicity" of being a practicing Catholic in Christ's Church!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"Gloria in excelsis Deo"

(Intoned by the celebrant of the Mass.)

(The choir response.)

Et in terra pax homininus
bone voluntatis
Laudamus te
Benedicimus te
Adoramus te
Glorificamus te,
Gratias agimus tibi propter
magnum gloriam tuum.
Domine Deus, Rex Coelestis,
Deus Pater omnipotens
Domine Fili unigenite
Jesu Christe Domine Deus
Agnus Dei Filius Patris
Qui tollis peccata mundi
miserere nobis.
Qui tollis peccata mundi,
suscipe deprecationem nostram.
Qui sedes ad dexteramPatris,
miserere nobis.
Quoniam tu solus Sanctus,
Tu solus Dominus
Tu solus Altissimus
Jesu Christe.
Cum Sancto Spiritu
in gloria Dei Patris
Amen.

- The Ambrosian Gloria -


http://www.solesmes.com/sons/gloria.ram

(Real monks chanting....)


Gregorian Chant - God's music!

 

[Singer]

Bill,

I have to go pick up a grandson and deliver a pickup truck to the mechanic and
get some parts for my swather and eat dinner........while I'm gone will you please
explain how the Catholic Church existed the day after pentecost.

You said:

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

Catholics admittingly confess to the term "Catholic" being used around 110 AD
with St. Ignatius and that it was taken from the term ''catholic' (Small C) that
depicted the group of believers (At, Before and after Pentecost) who believed
that Jesus was the Messiah. He was not asking them to believe anything more.

Please don't use the analogy that Jesus was a Catholic and God was a Catholic.

Believers existed before Catholicism.
Facial tissues existed before Kleenex.