Added to the Church

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by 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.

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?

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.

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?

[/b]Please don't use the analogy that Jesus was a Catholic and God was a Catholic.[/b]

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!

Believers existed before Catholicism.
Facial tissues existed before Kleenex.

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 -

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Bill said: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 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)

 

[Singer]

Bill,

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

YOUcannot show me that ANY church was established. When the term
church was mentioned in Acts 7:38, it could only be referring to the Catholic Church
if you are one to believe that the dirty old snotrag that the pioneers used on the Oregon Trail
was a Kleenex.
" This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel
which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the
lively oracles to give unto us''

Acts refers to the ''church in the wilderness''. This is referring to the O.T. of course and
although the term ''church'' does not appear in the O.T., that word was used in this
verse that gave evidence of a church in the wilderness of the Israelites.

Will you now contend that the Catholic Church ' existed in the times of Moses?

If not, what church was it that existed at that time?

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

Yes, I can understand youre supposing that maybe the facial tissues were finally
given the name Kleenex by their inventors, but BUT you're trying to tell me
that ALL facial tissues are Kleenex. You're saying that ALL faith was Catholic, that
ALL gatherings (churches) were Catholic and that ALL who believed the gospel were
eventually Catholic.

Think about it, Bill. Impossible !!

Noah was a saved man I'd hope you agree. Are you saying he was Catholic too..?


You just got done saying God and Jesus are Catholic.
You shouldn't admit that to just anyone...you'd become a laughing stock of the nation.

This is becoming bizarre.......(Billy Bizarre...now that does have a ring to it.

 

[gb93433]

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.

 

[Singer]

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.

Thanks for that, gb.

What do you have to say to that, Bill Putnam..?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:

Originally posted by DHK:
[qb]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
[qb] 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."

Please check the definition of "ekklesia." The church at Jerusalem was no more "true" than the church at Ephesus, or the one at Philippi, or the one at Corinth. Neither was the church at Rome the "true" church either. There is no such thing as a "true" church in the sense that you use it. Your logic is fallacious. If the church at Jerusalem described in Acts 2 is the true church, then every other church, including the one in Rome is of Satan, and are false churches. If there is only one true church, all other churches are false (and that includes the ones named in the New Testament).

The Catholic Church did not start with Peter, the Apostles, or with Christ. It started with Constantine in the fourth century. Your claim to Pentecost is bogus.
Paul and the rest of the apostled did not start a church. They started many churches. Paul himself on three missionary journeys started over 100 churches. Thomas went to India and started many churches there. It was Priscilla and Aquilla that probablly started the church in Rome, not Peter. The Bible speaks of churches being established; elders or pastors being ordained; deacons being appointed, etc. But this is all in the context of local churches. It never speaks in the context of some nebulous mystical invisible universal church--never!! The word ekklesia, always, always means assembly or congregation. There is no such thing as a universal congregation. Every congregation, must of necessity be local. The RCC doesn't even fit the definition of a church. It fits the definition of a corporation, not a church. At least be honest and call it for what it is. The RCC is not a church.

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.

Was the above your original assertion?
I hope so. Because I just answered it.

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?

Timothy was a bishop according to the KJV, just not a catholic one. The word means overseer. It is used in the Bible.
"He that desirees the office of a bishop desires a good thing. Let him first be BLAMELESS (hmmm, that's a whole other topic)

Do I claim to have the Holy Spirit? Yes, indeed I do. I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God. He fills me, empowers me, and has sealed me unto the day of redemption. When I read the Word, He illuminates my mind and gives me guidance as to its understanding. He gives me wisdom.
1Cor.2:10-14
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yes the Holy Spirit teaches and guides me. I have the same Holy Spirit that the early believers had. I don't vouch for the early fathers. Since some of them held to grave errors, I don't even know if certain of them had the Holy Spirit at all. But I do know that I do, and He has promised to guide me into truth.
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:

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!

YOU cannot show me that ANY church was established. When the term church was mentioned in Acts 7:38, it could only be referring to the Catholic Church if you are one to believe that the dirty old snotrag that the pioneers used on the Oregon Trail was a Kleenex.

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.

"This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel
which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the
lively oracles to give unto us''

Acts refers to the ''church in the wilderness''. This is referring to the O.T. of course and although the term ''church'' does not appear in the O.T., that word was used in this
verse that gave evidence of a church in the wilderness of the Israelites.

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

Will you now contend that the Catholic Church ' existed in the times of Moses?

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.

If not, what church was it that existed at that time?

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...)

Yes, I can understand youre supposing that maybe the facial tissues were finally
given the name Kleenex by their inventors, but BUT you're trying to tell me that ALL facial tissues are Kleenex.

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

You're saying that ALL faith was Catholic, that ALL gatherings (churches) were Catholic and that ALL who believed the gospel were eventually Catholic.

Think about it, Bill. Impossible !!

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.

Noah was a saved man I'd hope you agree. Are you saying he was Catholic too..?

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!

You just got done saying God and Jesus are Catholic. You shouldn't admit that to just anyone...you'd become a laughing stock of the nation.

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.

This is becoming bizarre.......(Billy Bizarre...now that doeshave a ring to it.

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.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
Please check the definition of "ekklesia." The church at Jerusalem was no more "true" than the church at Ephesus, or the one at Philippi, or the one at Corinth. Neither was the church at Rome the "true" church either. There is no such thing as a "true" church in the sense that you use it. Your logic is fallacious. If the church at Jerusalem described in Acts 2 is the true church, then every other church, including the one in Rome is of Satan, and are false churches. If there is only one true church, all other churches are false (and that includes the ones named in the New Testament).

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.

The Catholic Church did not start with Peter, the Apostles, or with Christ. It started with Constantine in the fourth century. Your claim to Pentecost is bogus.

(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!

Paul and the rest of the apostled did not start a church. They started many churches.

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.

Paul himself on three missionary journeys started over 100 churches. Thomas went to India and started many churches there. It was Priscilla and Aquilla that probablly started the church in Rome, not Peter.

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."

The Bible speaks of churches being established; elders or pastors being ordained; deacons being appointed, etc. But this is all in the context of local churches.

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

It never speaks in the context of some nebulous mystical invisible universal church--never!!

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."

The word ekklesia, always, always means assembly or congregation.

We are in total agreement here!

There is no such thing as a universal congregation.

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

Every congregation, must of necessity be local. The RCC doesn't even fit the definition of a 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!)

It fits the definition of a corporation, not a church. At least be honest and call it for what it is. The RCC is not a church.

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.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
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.

Thanks for that, gb.

What do you have to say to that, Bill Putnam..?

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)

 

[Singer]

Bill Putnam,

Try to understand that my upbring in an exclusive sect that claimed firstness
and sole rights to salvation has left me with a desire to investigate others of
like claim. The claims of the 2x2s did not make sense to me and you and
other Catholics have made your attempt to entice your listeners to Catholicism;
also without results.

Too much of what you say is conjecture. I know you're sincere in what you believe,
but you've admitted to searching for the church that had the longest history and
was mentioned in the bible. That is a wrong approach in finding God. Confessing
with thy mouth and believing in the heart does not even relate to finding a church.

If there was ever a crux to this matter, it might be included in the following
statement by DHK.

"If the church at Jerusalem described in Acts 2 is the
true church, then every other church, including the one in Rome
is of Satan, and are false churches. If there is only one true church,
all other churches are false (and that includes the ones named in the
New Testament).

As with many comments, you'll probably make a feeble attempt to
explain that; and in doing so you'll have to create new horizons that are
totally imaginary. For example, when confronted with the question about
the origination of Catholicism, you responded with:

Is Jesus "Universal"?

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


You're beginning to respond like a cat with diarrhea;
you can't cover your evidence fast enough to prevent other faults from
appearing.

If you were really interested in historical facts that might relate to
a church, you should investigate further the statement from gb:

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

I belonged to the church that called themselves "The Way".....and here
we see biblical mention of it.

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 word is not as repelling as the claims made by those in it.!!

(I have yet to respond to your last post)

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Singer:
Bill Putnam,

Try to understand that my upbring in an exclusive sect that claimed firstness
and sole rights to salvation has left me with a desire to investigate others of
like claim. The claims of the 2x2s did not make sense to me and you and
other Catholics have made your attempt to entice your listeners to Catholicism;
also without results.

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...

Too much of what you say is conjecture. I know you're sincere in what you believe,
but you've admitted to searching for the church that had the longest history and
was mentioned in the bible. That is a wrong approach in finding God. Confessing
with thy mouth and believing in the heart does not even relate to finding a church.

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!

If there was ever a crux to this matter, it might be included in the following
statement by DHK.

"If the church at Jerusalem described in Acts 2 is the true church, then every other church, including the one in Rome is of Satan, and are false churches. If there is only one true church, all other churches are false (and that includes the ones named in the New Testament).

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?

As with many comments, you'll probably make a feeble attempt to
explain that; and in doing so you'll have to create new horizons that are
totally imaginary. For example, when confronted with the question about
the origination of Catholicism, you responded with:

Is Jesus "Universal"?

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

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?

You're beginning to respond like a cat with diarrhea;
you can't cover your evidence fast enough to prevent other faults from
appearing.

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.

If you were really interested in historical facts that might relate to
a church, you should investigate further the statement from gb:

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

I belonged to the church that called themselves "The Way".....and here
we see biblical mention of it.

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!

The word is not as repelling as the claims made by those in it.!!

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 have yet to respond to your last post)

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

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
That Church is the...

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

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

We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. Smalcald Articles, Martin Luther

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by John Gilmore:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
That Church is the...

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

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

We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and [in truth] they are not [the Church]; nor will we listen to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid. For, thank God, [to-day] a child seven years old knows what the Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in one holy [catholic or] Christian Church. Smalcald Articles, Martin Luther

</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.

 

[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!

Plenty is wrong with that approach. First, it has not been determined that Christ
started a church and there is no mention in the whole bible of alligning oneself with
the oldest church in history to find favor with God. We are simply told to believe
that Jesus rose from the dead, is our saviour etc. What if someone could prove to
you that there is a church that is 3 weeks older than the Catholic Church?.....would
you switch to that one ?

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.[/b[

Ridiculous, Bill. You must think that Christ started all those churches of the NT...
and that they were all Catholic.

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.

You have no Proof either...you only see this through Catholic eyes....(that need glasses,
I might add).

OK, that's cool. I belong to a Church that is called Catholic!

But mine was first and mine was named long before yours was.
This might be the church that you're looking for, Bill. The Way.
(Bible proof noted ..please).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
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,

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.

RAMSAY, SIR WILLIAM MITCHELL (1851— ), British archaeologist, was born on the 15th of March 1851. He was educated at the universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Gottingen, and was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford (1882; honorary fellow 1898), and Lincoln College (1885; honorary 1899). In 1885 he was elected professor of classical art at Oxford, and in the next year professor of humanity at Aberdeen. From 1880 onwards he travelled viidely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul’s missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. He received the honorary degrees of D.C.L. Oxford, LL.D. St Andrews and Glasgow, D.D. Edinburgh, and was knighted in 1906. He was elected a member of learned societies in Europe and America, and has been awarded medals by the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society and the University of Pennsylvania. His numerous publications include: The Historical Geography. of Asia Minor (1890); - The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); The Cities and Bishoprics of Plirygia (2 vols., 1895, 1897); St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895; Germ. trans., 1898); Impressions of Turkey (1897); Was Christ born a~ Bethlehem? (1898); Historical Commentary on Gal atians (1899); The Education of Christ (1902); The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (1905); Pauline and other Studies in Early Christian History (1906); Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (1906); The Cities of St Paul (1907); Lucan and Pauline Studies (1q08); The Thousand and One Churches (with Miss Gertrude L. Bell, 1909); and articles in learned periodicals and the 9th, I 0th and I ith editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His wife, Lady Ramsay, granddaughter of Dr Andrew Marshall of Kirkintilloch, accompanied him in many of his journeys and is the
author of Everyday Life in Turkey (1897) and The Romance of Elisavet (1899).

Sir William Ramsey
DHK

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
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,

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.

RAMSAY, SIR WILLIAM MITCHELL (1851— ), British archaeologist, was born on the 15th of March 1851. He was educated at the universities of Aberdeen, Oxford and Gottingen, and was a fellow of Exeter College, Oxford (1882; honorary fellow 1898), and Lincoln College (1885; honorary 1899). In 1885 he was elected professor of classical art at Oxford, and in the next year professor of humanity at Aberdeen. From 1880 onwards he travelled viidely in Asia Minor and rapidly became the recognized authority on all matters relating to the districts associated with St Paul’s missionary journeys and on Christianity in the early Roman Empire. He received the honorary degrees of D.C.L. Oxford, LL.D. St Andrews and Glasgow, D.D. Edinburgh, and was knighted in 1906. He was elected a member of learned societies in Europe and America, and has been awarded medals by the Royal Geographical Society, the Royal Scottish Geographical Society and the University of Pennsylvania. His numerous publications include: The Historical Geography. of Asia Minor (1890); - The Church in the Roman Empire (1893); The Cities and Bishoprics of Plirygia (2 vols., 1895, 1897); St Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (1895; Germ. trans., 1898); Impressions of Turkey (1897); Was Christ born a~ Bethlehem? (1898); Historical Commentary on Gal atians (1899); The Education of Christ (1902); The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (1905); Pauline and other Studies in Early Christian History (1906); Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire (1906); The Cities of St Paul (1907); Lucan and Pauline Studies (1q08); The Thousand and One Churches (with Miss Gertrude L. Bell, 1909); and articles in learned periodicals and the 9th, I 0th and I ith editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His wife, Lady Ramsay, granddaughter of Dr Andrew Marshall of Kirkintilloch, accompanied him in many of his journeys and is the
author of Everyday Life in Turkey (1897) and The Romance of Elisavet (1899).

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)

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
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.

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

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by WPutnam:
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.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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

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 [/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 -

 

[Singer]

(Putnam)

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

(Singer)

Churches fall into error and correct their errors only to do so again and that
includes the Catholic Church. None is perfect. Of course the gates of hell will
not prevail against the church (the body of believers of all time). There will
always be believers which proves that hell will not prevail.

Either way, my mind remains unaffected by the claims of Catholicism.

"Whosoever believes in me shall never die" appears to have no tricky
and hidden truths that might reveal a certain church. If it did, I guess
I'd have to vote for the "Way" that we saw mentioned here.