I Newton
Joe did a GOOD job providing discussion and answers from Scripture tio back it up.
You have not.
You have provided no proofs just hearsay or your imagination and opinion.
So let is please see some proofs of what you say about the Catholic Church.
Thanks,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

I Newton
Joe did a GOOD job providing discussion and answers from Scripture tio back it up.
You have not.
You have provided no proofs just hearsay or your imagination and opinion.
So let is please see some proofs of what you say about the Catholic Church.
Thanks,
Fred

---

OK Fred, One simple question. Exactly when was the RCC established/chartered or what ever you want to call it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Newton

All he has quoted is scriptures showing that "A" church was set up and claims that this church IS the RCC.

---

Yes, 'A' Church; 'the' Church whose history intimately identifies it as one and the same 'Roman Catholic Church'. You might have missed the gist of my response; the Roman Catholic Church IS Christ's Kingdom. When a Roman Catholic reads scripture in part he is reading the history of Christendom, the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Christ's role is pivotal (obviously) in that He is the Messianic King. You do recall that Judaism was waiting for the Messianic King? This is a key point made very clear in scripture. Study what that means to a Jew of the day, they were literally waiting for an earthly Divine ruler (assuming they recognized Him). Christ trained his replacements for the Sanhedrin, the Twelve; you might say the old salt lost its savour (Cf. Mat 10:13). To members of the Sanhedrin Christ tells them that the because their service is unprofitable (Cf. Luke 17:10), the Kingdom will be given to other (Cf. Luke 17:21 Matt “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and … will give the vineyard to others.“ (Mark 12:9). He tells Jude, “I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof.” (Matt 21:43).

What profoundly manifests itself in scripture concerning 'Church', i.e. the Kingdom of God, is that Christ commissions, ordains, and sets out a mission for his new Church to serve God, to yield fruits. Thus, in Acts and the epistles we see the organization of that Kingdom into a House of God. “And God indeed hath set some in the church;” A pecking order, an ordering of disciplines; “first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. ” (1 Cor 12:28). Furthermore, scripture show a hierarchal relationship when we see that Timothy and Titus are sent to be bishops over Ephesus and Crete, respectively. This was a Catholic 'authority' exercised before the word 'Catholic' was used to describe the Church. What equally important is that the faithful in Christ at that time were obedient in faith to the ordained. (Cf. Rom 1:5; 15:18, Galatians 1:8).

Yes, there is but one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

Yes, there is but one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Roman Catholic Church.

---

Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

---

I don't really think that's a fair question. I have some problems with some of Joe's translation and/or interpretation, but expecting a specific name like that is a bit unreasonable. Obviously there would be development, and the name is just part of it. What it's called isn't really important; what matters is, does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I don't really think that's a fair question. I have some problems with some of Joe's translation and/or interpretation, but expecting a specific name like that is a bit unreasonable. Obviously there would be development, and the name is just part of it. What it's called isn't really important; what matters is, does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.

---

I accept what you say. Whilst you were writing, I was Googling around and learned from a number of sites both Catholic and not that "by the middle of the second century all the chief centres of Christianity were headed by bishops, a form of organization that remained universal until the Protestant Reformation." (Wikipedia) The Cambridge History of Christianity, volume 1, 2006, states, "The general consensus among scholars has been that, at the turn of the first and second centuries, local congregations were led by bishops and presbyters whose offices were overlapping or indistinguishable." This article describes the organization of the Early Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop

So can we say that's when the RCC became formally organized? Also, can we say before its formal organization, there was no RCC per se?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Why isn't the RCC named explicitly? That would have been an important pronouncement. Why did Jesus use the nebulous word "Church"?

---

The word church is not nebulous, it means the called out ones, it means those who have listened to the message and embraced it. All that was ever asked was belief, all the rest is man's invention

At First it was called just "The Church"
However soon after the Acts history tells us of others who called themselves a church. Those were not founded by the apostles.
So the word "Catholic" meaning universal was added to the name of The Church" to distinguish it from the late comers who were not teaching biblical truths.
That's real authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

does the RCC actually represent the church that Jesus established? That's the real question, or so it seems to me.

---

I think it ceased to be that representative in the fourth century when it became a state religion. It is easily forgotten that Jesus said you cannot serve God and money. The money came with the state and all the trappings of power. The Church that embrassed that was what became known as the RCC. It is easily forgotten that the word Roman in its title refers to the fact that it was the state church of the Roman empire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

The word church is not nebulous, it means the called out ones, it means those who have listened to the message and embraced it. All that was ever asked was belief, all the rest is man's invention

---

Okay. "Nebulous" wasn't a good word choice. Check my post just above regarding Early Church history and organization.

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.
That's true authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.

---

When was that, arcura?

I found this in Wikipedia: "The efficient organization of the Roman Empire became the template for the organisation of the church in the fourth century, particularly after Constantine's Edict of Milan. As the church moved from the shadows of privacy into the public forum it acquired land for churches, burials and clergy."

Before then, it had been independent congregations overseen by bishops. The center of power and authority over all the independent churches became Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

paraclete, Th word Roman was added to the Catholic Church name because of the split with the Greek churches.
That's true authentic history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

Fred,
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it had something to do with the bishop of Rome becoming established as pope? Or am I off base here?

Wondergirl,
It was soon after the big split that the name Roman was officially added to the name.
Sorry I have forgotten the year.
You are a wonder for you wonder a lot and well.
I love that.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwashbur

Fred,
I wasn't aware of that. I thought it had something to do with the bishop of Rome becoming established as pope?

---

That's what I found in my Googling during the past hour.

Wondergirl,
The first bishop of Rome was Peter.
Like the other apostles he was a Bishop and in his case the leader of The Church.
However that was not recognized by the Roman Government who were hell bent on stamping out the Christians.
But as Jesus promised, He would be with His Church and the gates of hell would not prevail upon it.
Peace abnd kindness,
Fred

It was in Peter’s Office, i.e. the Pope. There are a number of writings in antiquity, you might recall the several times I listed a dozen or so, where the primacy of Peter is recognized by the Bishops.

If each Bishop was an independent ‘prince,’ how then do we explain the 21 Ecumenical Councils; each one have bearing on our faith, each Ecumenical council is not formally accepted without confirmation of Peter’s Seat, i.e. the Pope. The following is a list of Ecumenical councils; there were also a number of lesser councils and synods which lacked the consensuses of the entire Church, and thus may not have been applicable to the entire Church or may require adoption by an Ecumenical council. Oh, yes. I forgot one; there was a council in Jerusalem which is outlined in Acts. It is obvious that Protestants can’t recognize these councils as anything other than a ‘gathering’ of Bishops. If they did, they’d need to recognize the authority of the Pope.


FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA, Year: 325
COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Year: 381
COUNCIL OF EPHESUS, Year: 431
FIRST COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, Year: 451
SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Year: 553
THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Years: 680-681
SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA, Year: 787
FOURTH COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, Year: 869
FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1123
SECOND LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1139
THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1179
FOURTH LATERAN COUNCIL, Year: 1215
FIRST COUNCIL OF LYONS, Year: 1245
SECOND COUNCIL OF LYONS, Year: 1274
COUNCIL OF VIENNE, Years: 1311-1313
COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE , Years: 1414-1418
COUNCIL OF BASLE/FERRARA/FLORENCE, Years: 1431-1439
FIFTH LATERAN COUNCIL, Years: 1512-1517
COUNCIL OF TRENT, Years: 1545-1563
FIRST VATICAN COUNCIL, Years: 1869-1870
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, Years: 1962-1965

JoeT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeT777

It was in Peter's Office, i.e. the Pope. There are a number of writings in antiquity, you might recall the several times I listed a dozen or so, where the primacy of Peter is recognized by the Bishops.

---

Back up the bus, Joe. What was going on with the Early Church between Jesus' resurrection and 325? Weren't there a number of independent congregations headed by bishops, and gradually large episcopacies were established in Alexandria and Athens and Rome?

Wondergirl,
What went on was that all the bishops recognized Peter as the leader just as the bible and history so indicates.
Read the book On This Rock for a complete showing of Scripture and history.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

Wondergirl,
What went on was that all the bishops recognized Peter as the leader just as the bible and history so indicates.
Read the book On This Rock for a complete showing of Scripture and history.

---

Upon this rock by Stephen R. Kay (Ignatius Press)? Is there a secular reference?