DHK replied, where I last said (given in italics):
Does the church, as Christ founded it, have authority, sir? What does it mean to "bind and loose," sir? Have you noticed the actions of the Church (the only one around for the first 1000 years of church history) with the heresies that sprung up? What happens to the disobedient brother per Matthew 18:18?
And you replied:
They were the "acorn" from which, as the years go by and Christ had already ascended to the Father in heaven, would the mighty oak tree come to be! And yet they are still the same "assembly" which acquired the embellishment of the name "Catholic" somewhere around A.D. 100, that was to become even larger as the mission to "make disciples of all nations" per Matthew 28:19 finds success, that the "Mighty Oak" would come to be! And yes, being 2,000 years old, Holy Church had her scandals from the fallibility of her own clergy, even while the vast majority of them were good holy men and women who you seem to blithely ignore as irrelevant are so obviously present in literature and documentation.
The One holy Catholic and Apostolic "Assembly"!
You last said:
Remember all those epistles Paul wrote to those first churches, admonishing them, warning them, correcting them, but nowhere does he say going was a sin.
And I replied:
They were all local/regional churches who were a part of THE CHURCH! Christ established ONE church, not a multitude of churches all going their own ways and with their own doctrines, but ONE church!
And no, it was not quite "universal" yet, was it? Was it to stay that way, DHK, or was something dynamic to occur as the apostles (and their successors) were to "make disciples of all nations" in the command given to them by Christ in Matthew 28:19?
While THE CHURCH certainly a quite local "assembly," it was not to remain that way, was it? We soon were to have local/regional "assemblies" formed at Corinth, Thesaloniki and elsewhere, all local in and of themselves but certainly to teach and preach the same doctrines and gospel message of Jesus Christ, right, sir? And, in union with the first original "local assembly" in Jerusalem that formed at Pentecost, they are still THE CHURCH?
DHK, I am "audacious" enough to claim that this same beginnings, in consonance with the success of the commands of Matthew 28:19, that what was a "local assembly" in Jerusalem became the "Mighty Oak" we see growing throughout all of the first 1500 years of her growth, being the only church around (other then the unfortunate schism of the Orthodox Eastern Church) to the times of Luther in the 16th century!
I marvel at the success of the holy Spirit in doing such a thing!
And guess what, DHK, the name "Catholic" (which means "universal") did indeed, become an appropriate name, and indeed, the Catholic Church is "universal"! Today she is! At her beginnings, she was not, still in the form of the "acorn" of Christ's establishment and at Pentecost.
I last said:
Were they autonomous? If they were, Paul would have no authority to admonish them and correct them, just like the pope who refused King Henry VIIIth his divorce, thus setting the stage for the revolt of the Church in England to separate from the Church, the original Church, headquartered now in Rome.
What business was it of Clement anyway? Corinth was a far away regional church who had her own bishops to discipline them so why is Clement writing to them in a similar admonishment as Paul did? Because the bishops of the region came to Clement for direction and advise! Why? Because Clement was the 3rd successor to "the chair of Peter"! He was the Bishop of Rome! (Read his "Letter to the Corinthians" sometime and get the picture, DHK.) Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims that they were always autonomous from the Bishop of Rome, but this letter put to route, that notion completely!
And slowly, but steadily, THE CHURCH grew, from the "acorn" of it's beginning, to a sapling in it's youth, to the mighty oak it has become!
Also, I am sure that excommunication in those times in Corinth involved a local bishop (overseer appointed by Paul, no doubt) that had this local authority to do as you say, just like my local bishop has authority here in his own diocese.
Unfortunately, those churches Paul admonished eventually separated from the Original Church as well - the Orthodox Schism circa A.D. 1000 - thus the Church in Corinth, Thessaloniki and Ephesus and other interesting places are now mostly Orthodox.
Or shall I also blame Clement, the 3rd successor to Peter, the pope, Bishop of Rome at the time, for the schism that ultimately occurred in Corinth and the rest of the Eastern church region long after he was dead and buried? Is he to blame for this as he also originated a Letter to the Corinthians as well, such as Paul earlier did?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
A "Baptist Church" in Corinth? I doubt it, but since Catholics and Orthodox are considered "fair game" by many Protestant/Fundamentalist missionaries, it would not really surprise me.
I got someone really upset with me in another forum when I complained about his church going into South America and treating the Catholic population there as "non-Christians." And I I were young enough, yet retired as I would have the means and could speak Spanish/Portuguese, I would love to go there and "hound" these missionaries in defense of the Catholic Faith!
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.
Does the church, as Christ founded it, have authority, sir? What does it mean to "bind and loose," sir? Have you noticed the actions of the Church (the only one around for the first 1000 years of church history) with the heresies that sprung up? What happens to the disobedient brother per Matthew 18:18?
And you replied:
DHK, in those very early times, while Christ was among them and even when the church was not yet really established, there was only one local "assembly" of people, disciples, who were following Him, Christ.
They were the "acorn" from which, as the years go by and Christ had already ascended to the Father in heaven, would the mighty oak tree come to be! And yet they are still the same "assembly" which acquired the embellishment of the name "Catholic" somewhere around A.D. 100, that was to become even larger as the mission to "make disciples of all nations" per Matthew 28:19 finds success, that the "Mighty Oak" would come to be! And yes, being 2,000 years old, Holy Church had her scandals from the fallibility of her own clergy, even while the vast majority of them were good holy men and women who you seem to blithely ignore as irrelevant are so obviously present in literature and documentation.
The One holy Catholic and Apostolic "Assembly"!
You last said:
Remember all those epistles Paul wrote to those first churches, admonishing them, warning them, correcting them, but nowhere does he say going was a sin.
And I replied:
They were all local/regional churches who were a part of THE CHURCH! Christ established ONE church, not a multitude of churches all going their own ways and with their own doctrines, but ONE church!
DHK, I think all Christians acknowledge what Christ said in Matthew 16:18-19 is future tense (…Upon this rock I will (future tense) build my church…) and that indeed, her beginnings were at Pentecost. And indeed, the first church, the "acorn" I have been speaking of, was indeed local to Jerusalem. In other words, there was a time when THE CHURCH was merely a local church. After all, it had to start somewhere, didn't it?
And no, it was not quite "universal" yet, was it? Was it to stay that way, DHK, or was something dynamic to occur as the apostles (and their successors) were to "make disciples of all nations" in the command given to them by Christ in Matthew 28:19?
While THE CHURCH certainly a quite local "assembly," it was not to remain that way, was it? We soon were to have local/regional "assemblies" formed at Corinth, Thesaloniki and elsewhere, all local in and of themselves but certainly to teach and preach the same doctrines and gospel message of Jesus Christ, right, sir? And, in union with the first original "local assembly" in Jerusalem that formed at Pentecost, they are still THE CHURCH?
DHK, I am "audacious" enough to claim that this same beginnings, in consonance with the success of the commands of Matthew 28:19, that what was a "local assembly" in Jerusalem became the "Mighty Oak" we see growing throughout all of the first 1500 years of her growth, being the only church around (other then the unfortunate schism of the Orthodox Eastern Church) to the times of Luther in the 16th century!
I marvel at the success of the holy Spirit in doing such a thing!
And guess what, DHK, the name "Catholic" (which means "universal") did indeed, become an appropriate name, and indeed, the Catholic Church is "universal"! Today she is! At her beginnings, she was not, still in the form of the "acorn" of Christ's establishment and at Pentecost.
I last said:
Were they autonomous? If they were, Paul would have no authority to admonish them and correct them, just like the pope who refused King Henry VIIIth his divorce, thus setting the stage for the revolt of the Church in England to separate from the Church, the original Church, headquartered now in Rome.
If they were "autonomous" as you say, why does Paul still discipline them? He was their "founder" in those regions, you know, all teaching the same doctrines and the gospel of Jesus Christ, but unfortunately, later on, at the end of the apostolic era, we find one Clement of Rome disciplining the Corinthians once again.
What business was it of Clement anyway? Corinth was a far away regional church who had her own bishops to discipline them so why is Clement writing to them in a similar admonishment as Paul did? Because the bishops of the region came to Clement for direction and advise! Why? Because Clement was the 3rd successor to "the chair of Peter"! He was the Bishop of Rome! (Read his "Letter to the Corinthians" sometime and get the picture, DHK.) Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox Church claims that they were always autonomous from the Bishop of Rome, but this letter put to route, that notion completely!
You get the idea Jesus, from His throne in heaven, knew what He was doing when He inspired Saul to stop "persecuting me" to be that very spear-head of what evangelization was all about and how it was to be done! I also note the successes in other parts of the world, Japan, South America, Africa, of the successors of Paul and the other apostles who went on in this grand mission.
And slowly, but steadily, THE CHURCH grew, from the "acorn" of it's beginning, to a sapling in it's youth, to the mighty oak it has become!
If he did not have authority over them, why did he keep writing to them? And likewise, why did a successor later one, Clement of Rome, write to the Corinthians again if he had no authority as you claim? Or are you going to claim that Clement was "meddling" in the affairs of the Corinthians where he had no business doing so?
Also, I am sure that excommunication in those times in Corinth involved a local bishop (overseer appointed by Paul, no doubt) that had this local authority to do as you say, just like my local bishop has authority here in his own diocese.
Unfortunately, those churches Paul admonished eventually separated from the Original Church as well - the Orthodox Schism circa A.D. 1000 - thus the Church in Corinth, Thessaloniki and Ephesus and other interesting places are now mostly Orthodox.
Oh, give me a break, DHK!
Or shall I also blame Clement, the 3rd successor to Peter, the pope, Bishop of Rome at the time, for the schism that ultimately occurred in Corinth and the rest of the Eastern church region long after he was dead and buried? Is he to blame for this as he also originated a Letter to the Corinthians as well, such as Paul earlier did?
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
A "Baptist Church" in Corinth? I doubt it, but since Catholics and Orthodox are considered "fair game" by many Protestant/Fundamentalist missionaries, it would not really surprise me.
I got someone really upset with me in another forum when I complained about his church going into South America and treating the Catholic population there as "non-Christians." And I I were young enough, yet retired as I would have the means and could speak Spanish/Portuguese, I would love to go there and "hound" these missionaries in defense of the Catholic Faith!
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.
