I Corinthians; Defining the church

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

DISRAELI

FlyersFan
Where Peter is ... there is the church

I would say the church is where Christ is.


Matthew 16:18 ... Jesus said - 'you are Peter, the Rock, and upon you I shall build My church.'
So the church is built upon Peter. So I"m just saying ...where Peter is ... there is the Church.
And Christ naturally is in the Church which is built upon Peter.

(don't shoot me ... I'm just using Jesus words ...
)

Then we have Jesus saying 'where two or more are gathered in My name, I am there'.
So, even if people aren't gathered 'in the church' ... Christ is still with them if they
gather in His name.

So it really doesn't matter .... right??




posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

DISRAELI
If I belong to Christ, then I belong to the church, because that is the only true definition of membership of the church.

Well, there is "the church", the community of Christians, and then there is "the Church", specific religious institutions. The two were (mostly) one and the same prior to 1054, stayed reasonable harmonious for the next 500 years, then exploded into dissension in the Reformation. Though both I and a Southern Baptist claim to belong to "the church", it is difficult to reconcile the gulf that exists between what I, a Roman Catholic, believes it means to be a Christian, and what the Southern Baptist believes, and I'm a Protestant-leaning Catholic at that.

I've struggled over the years to sort out the theological differences that exist within the spectrum of Christian and pseudo-Christian belief systems, without much success. I'm convinced that only the Second Coming can possibly bring about Christian unity.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

Your distinction comes dangerously close to saying "thera are Christians who are not in the church".
Whereas my approach is that they are necessarily the same thing. In other words, the true definition of the church is in the phrase "the blessed company of all faithful people" (which comes from an Anglican eucharistic prayer, but I don't know where Cranmer got it from).

Let me draw your attention to Paul's usage.
In this very passage, Paul is addressing the Corinthian community as "church" at a time when there was no bishop in Rome and we're not even sure that there were any Christians in Rome.
As far as Paul was concerned, he himself was their only authority, under Christ.
In this chapter and later, he is criticising them for attaching themselves to human leaders.
So Paul's own usage is at odds with the "Church=Peter" idea.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

In my mind, the second usage you mention is a source of undesirable confusion, and I always try to avoid it. Hence my use of words like "communion" or "community" as a substitute.
Confusion of the two meanings is at the heart of the standard Colbe-Catholic line "Christ founded the church and we are the church".

I agree that we are not going to reach institutional unity, and I don't think institutional unity is what matters.
The kind of unity that I would be looking for is "mutual acceptance and co-operation".
There will be a thread on the unity question at a later point in this series.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

DISRAELI
Your distinction comes dangerously close to saying "thera are Christians who are not in the church".

Why is that 'dangerous'. I'd say that's a pretty well established fact. There are tons of Christians out there who are not officially members of any organized Christian church and who aren't members of the Church that Jesus established via Peter. People who try to follow Christ as best they can are Christ-ians.


the true definition of the church is in the phrase "the blessed company of all faithful people" (which comes from an Anglican eucharistic prayer, but I don't know where Cranmer got it from).

I'll take the definition from Jesus' words from scripture. Jesus Himself said to Peter ... 'upon you I build My Church'. So as far as I'm concerned ... where Peter is, there is the Church that Jesus Himself started.


Let me draw your attention to Paul's usage....
So Paul's own usage is at odds with the "Church=Peter" idea.

Paul didn't get along with Peter. So I"m not surprised that some egotism and/or infighting found it's way into his language. He even boasted about having yelled at Peter, whom Jesus had made head of His Church on earth.


Again ... Jesus said 'where two or more are gathered in my name, I will be there.'
So does it matter if someone is a member of an official Church or not?
A family can pray together in Jesus name .. and He is with them.
That's good enough for me.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   
edited .... I don't want to get dragged into that ...
edit on 9/19/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

As adjensen has just pointed out, the word "church" is used in two different ways (even leaving aside the "building" usage)
There is "church" in the sense of "all Christians". That is the sense which Paul is using.
There is "church" in the sense of an institution.
When Colbe says "Christ founded the church and the Roman Catholics are the church", he is confusing the two meanings- he uses the first meaning in the first part of the sentence, and unconsciously swirches to the other meaning in the second part.
When you say "There can only be one church", you too are confusing the two meanings. Obviously there can only be one church in the first sense, but that doesn't constitute a reason why there can't be more than one institution.
That is why I think the "institution" meaning of the word church is a source of confusion and ought to be abandoned.

I agree that it does not matter whether a person is a member of an institution which calls itself a church.
What matters is that he belongs to the church in the first sense, the sense that Paul is using in this chapter.


edit on 19-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

adjensen

DISRAELI
If I belong to Christ, then I belong to the church, because that is the only true definition of membership of the church.

Well, there is "the church", the community of Christians, and then there is "the Church", specific religious institutions. The two were (mostly) one and the same prior to 1054, stayed reasonable harmonious for the next 500 years, then exploded into dissension in the Reformation. Though both I and a Southern Baptist claim to belong to "the church", it is difficult to reconcile the gulf that exists between what I, a Roman Catholic, believes it means to be a Christian, and what the Southern Baptist believes, and I'm a Protestant-leaning Catholic at that.

I've struggled over the years to sort out the theological differences that exist within the spectrum of Christian and pseudo-Christian belief systems, without much success. I'm convinced that only the Second Coming can possibly bring about Christian unity.



DISRAELI,

Adjensen too believes it is going to take God Himself. Watch and see...

Maybe, God will take you or me before but the "middle coming" of Christ prophesied. God is going
to show every person on the earth, the faith IS Roman Catholicism. Only God can unite Christianity and
bring non-Christians to the faith. We can spend years disagreeing so remember our discussion, more important, a saint's words.

Our Lord is NOT returning in His person until the Second Coming...the Final Judgment. He is coming
"soon" spiritually, all the world will see divine signs and experience them in their interior. The world is
near the END of very evil TIMES. In the new time, some Christians call it the Millennium, everyone will be Roman Catholic, all peoples will believe in the most holy Eucharist. You accept the fact now Jesus prayed to God the Father, He wants us all to be one in belief. At the start, all Christians believed in the Eucharist ( the Eucharist is referred to in the Gospel - breaking bread, break bread, breaking of bread). Jesus is speaking literally, I am the "bread" of life.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux
(1090-1153)

"We know that the coming of the Lord is threefold: the third coming is between the other two and it is not visible in the way they are.

At his first coming the Lord was seen on earth and lived among men, who saw him and hated him. At his last coming All flesh shall see the salvation of our God, and They shall look on him whom they have pierced. In the middle, the hidden coming, only the chosen see him, and they see him within themselves; and so their souls are saved.

The first coming was in flesh and weakness, the middle coming is in spirit and power, and the final coming will be in glory and majesty.

This middle coming is like a road that leads from the first coming to the last. At the first, Christ was our redemption; at the last, he will become manifest as our life; but in this middle way he is our rest and our consolation.

If you think that I am inventing what I am saying about the middle coming, listen to the Lord himself: If anyone loves me, he will keep my words, and the Father will love him, and we shall come to him"…

+ + +

1 Corinthians 10:16
The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?


Acts Of Apostles 2:42
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.


Acts Of Apostles 2:46
And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart;


Acts Of Apostles 20:7
And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight.


Acts Of Apostles 20:11
Then going up, and breaking bread and tasting, and having talked a long time to them, until daylight, so he departed.


Luke 24:35
And they told what things were done in the way; and how they knew him in the breaking of the bread.



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

colbe
The Orthodox broke away.

I have told you once and I now tell you again; this did not happen.
I will quote you the account of John Julius Norwich, in his history of Byzantium (2nd vol., p320).


At three o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, 16 July 1054, in the presence of all the clergy assembled for the Eucharist, the three ex-legates of Rome, two cardinals and an archbishop, all in their full canonicals, stride into the Great Church of St. Sophia and up to the high altar, on which thery formally laid their solemn Bull of Excommunication. This done, they turned on their heel and marched from the building, pausing only to shake the dust symbolically from their feet. Two days later having taken formal leave of the Emperor- who remained as courteous as ever and loaded them with presents- they left for Rome.

This is the papal party creating a breach with the main body of the church.
Not the other way round.
Technically, the papal communion has been guilty of schism from that moment.

Another reason why the Orthodox communion could not "break with" the authority of the Pope is that they had NEVER, at any time, accepted the overall authority of the Pope in the first place.
It was the Emperor, not the Pope, who summoned the Nicene Council.
When the Nicene Council was sitting, it was the Nicene Council that was at the head of the church, not the Pope.
The Council had this to say on the question of church leadership, in its sixth Canon;

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges...

In other words, it is regarded as an "ancient custom" that certain great metropolitans, likethe bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, each had supervisory authority over the provinces close to their own. This is presumably based on the importance of their respective cities.
There is no suggestion that any one of them has supreme authority over all the others.
This is collective leadership, not monarchical leadership.

The "unbroken line" of bishops in Rome is beside the point if their overall authority has never, at any point in history, been accepted by the whole body of the church.
The only way the Pope could attain supremacy was by walking away from everybody else in the church and then saying "Now I am on my own, that makes me the only leader. Anyone who doesn't like it, I define them as not being in the church, so their opinion doesn't count."
That is the real history of the last two thousand years.

As I've already said, my relation with the Pope is not what matters.
What matters is my relation with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
If the Father has called me into fellowship with his Son, then I am part of his church (that is, his EKKLESIA, which means "that which has been called out")

edit on 19-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 

All this material about the future expectation and the eucharist is departing from the topic of this thread, which is defining the church and what constitutes membership of the church.
Do please try to stick to the subject in hand.
If I start a thread about the future expectation, then you can start talking about it.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Personal I think that you are off when you call the called out ones "to be called out of their homes". The calling out is a seperation just like God called the children of Israel out of Egypt. Which is symbolic of the world.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   

DISRAELI
reply to post by colbe
 

All this material about the future expectation and the eucharist is departing from the topic of this thread, which is defining the church and what constitutes membership of the church.
Do please try to stick to the subject in hand.
If I start a thread about the future expectation, then you can start talking about it.



Hi there,

I have been, you deny the Eucharist which is the pinnacle of the faith, this is why there are members
of a visible Church for 2000 years, of which you deny too. Most of Christianity is Roman Catholic. Figure out why. Your Bible didn't drop from Heaven complete DISRAELI.

Read history. This is what converts many, many Protestant ministers. They look at authority and at the
quotes,the beliefs of the Apostolic Fathers. It would make sense, men taught by the Apostles would be
following Our Lord's teachings.


bless you,


colbe



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
DISRAELI,

You are polite in reply, a gentleman, very kind I would say. Please brother, Jesus wants you to become Roman Catholic. Brilliant men in history when learning something they didn't realize about the faith, it changed them, they became Roman Catholic. Type in Catholic Apologetics and any question about the faith
you may have or ask a Catholic.

Jesus is the way, the Truth and the Life. He is God and man and doesn't change. What is persecuted more
than the faith? It is going to get so much worse. That's a sign for you. When the Holy Father proclaims
the 5th Marian Dogma for example. People who do not understand will have a fit.



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by guitarplayer
 

The word EKKLESIA was also a secular word, meaning a political assembly.
Being "called out of the home" was the original idea of the secular word, and if I had not acknowledged that somebody knowledgeable on language could have picked me up on the point.

I agree with you that the Christian usage can be given the additional overtones of "being called out of the world", and I said so a couple of lines further down.



edit on 21-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   

colbe
Read history.

I have been reading history for the last fifty years.
It was on the basis of knowing much more history than you do that I was able to spend my previous post demolishing your idea that the Orthodox people "broke away" from accepting Papal authority.
As I demonstrated, the main body of the church in the east had NEVER accepted papal authority, going right back to the beginning of the church, so there was nothing for them to break away from.
In fact the "breaking away" was the other way round, as I have already shown.

God does not want me to belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
He wants me to belong to Christ.
That is much more important, to the extent that God is more important than the Pope.




edit on 21-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

DISRAELI

colbe
Read history.
I have been reading history for the last fifty years. It was on the basis of knowing much more history than you do that I was able to spend my previous post demolishing your idea that the Orthodox people "broke away" from accepting Papal authority.
As I demonstrated, the main body of the church in the east had NEVER accepted papal authority, going right back to the beginning of the church, so there was nothing for them to break away from.
In fact the "breaking away" was the other way round, as I have already shown.

God does not want me to belong to the Roman Catholic Church.
He wants me to belong to Christ.
That is much more important, to the extent that God is more important than the Pope.

edit on 21-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)


If you read a biased account of history, you could read history for next 1000 years and not be correct.

Really, you did no such thing. Where is the Apostolic succession for the Orthodox? Give me the list
of Orthodox leadership in succession to Peter, their popes since 33 A.D. It is back to the authority question. Pride, to this day for the Orthodox and Protestant, I will no follow God's authority on earth, I am my own pope. For sure, it is easier.

Yes, God does want you to become Roman Catholic. The Remnant is Roman Catholic DISRAELI.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe

I have already told you that the Apostolic succession does not matter.
The existence of an unbroken line has no relevance if the authority of the line has NEVER, at any point in history, been accepted by the rest of the church.
You cannot identify any moment in history when the rest of the church said "We accept the authority of the Pope". It did not happen.
They cannot "break away" from his authority if they have never accepted it in the first place.

I have quoted the description of the act by which the church of Rome broke away from the main body of the church.

At three o'clock in the afternoon of Saturday, 16 July 1054, in the presence of all the clergy assembled for the Eucharist, the three ex-legates of Rome, two cardinals and an archbishop, all in their full canonicals, stride into the Great Church of St. Sophia and up to the high altar, on which thery formally laid their solemn Bull of Excommunication. This done, they turned on their heel and marched from the building, pausing only to shake the dust symbolically from their feet. Two days later having taken formal leave of the Emperor- who remained as courteous as ever and loaded them with presents- they left for Rome.

At one point early in the reign of Constantine, the supreme authority in the church was the Nicene Council.
The Council had this to say on the question of church leadership, in its sixth Canon;

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges...

In other words, it is regarded as an "ancient custom" that certain great metropolitans, likethe bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, each had supervisory authority over the provinces close to their own.
Do you not understand? As far as the Council is concerned, the bishop of Rome is not the supreme leader. he is nothing more than one of a a small group of leaders who have have authority in their immediate localities.

The only way the Pope could attain supremacy was by walking away from everybody else in the church and then saying "Now I am on my own, that makes me the only leader. Anyone who doesn't like it, I define them as not being in the church, so their opinion doesn't count."
That is the real history of the last two thousand years.

I worship God, not man.
Therefore I give my allegiance to God and his Christ, not to the Pope.
God does not want me in the Roamn Catholic Church.

edit on 22-9-2013 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Dear DISRAELI,

I suppose I should tell you that I am not in complete agreement with your interpretations of some events and doctrines. But I must tell you that is a small thing in comparison to the great truths and miraculous events found in the Bible. I am so pleased about your faith in Christ, it is heartwarming to find another brother walking that path.

Yes, I claim to be Catholic, as does colbe, but all of us are humans with various strengths and weaknesses. He is merciful, and we can only hope that our errors and failings will find forgiveness in His Heart.

Normally, I look for areas of agreement, but if it is important or interesting to you, I will try to look for places where I don't see things quite as you do. That would be an unpleasant task for me. I find controversy amongst the Church in public to be distasteful and unenlightening to outsiders, but I will at your request.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 

To be honest, the object of the exercise was to get away from the whole inter-denominational imbroglio and make a fresh start based on the Pauline understanding of God's people.
Hence the last paragraph of the OP, focussing on all those in any denomination having a relation with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
To me, the church is "the blessed company of all faithful people", which I know as Cranmer's phrase, but it might be older.
So I would rather lay off the interdenominational conflict except when I'm coming under attack on those lines.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

Dear DISRAELI,


So I would rather lay off the interdenominational conflict except when I'm coming under attack on those lines.

Thank you, so would I. I think I'll make a quick review of the thread. I was away and I'm sure I missed some good things.

With respect,
Charles1952





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join