[Tj3]

So which then, is the true Church?

Or is the Christian faith an amorphous mob of like-minded believers?

The body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Nowhere does scripture say that we must be members of any denomination.

For almost a THOUSAND years after the death of Christ there was only ONE Church...

That is not true in the sense that you are referring to "The Church" (Your denomination).

[JoeT777]

I'm OK with the idea that "The Church", the mystical body of Christ, came into being at the ascension, or maybe even long before that. But to equate the Roman Catholic Church, a religious organization, with the mystical body of Christ is crass institutional arrogance.

No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.

Pope Paul VI described the “Mystical Body of Christ” as follows:

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. The Credo of the People of God , Pope Paul VI on June 30, 1968

By the “fullness of faith” I meant to imply the fullness as described here: “…Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964

With that said the RCC holds that other faiths…”have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (ibid)

JoeT

[Tj3]

No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.

That is arrogant - to suggest that a denomination IS the body of Christ.

[ordinaryguy]

I guess I'm just hoping to hear what you believe is the final authority is for determining orthodoxy since it seems you reject both the Bible and the Church....???

I think determining orthodoxy is a game that religious institutions and the people who inhabit them play to determine who is IN and who is OUT. This game and the rules by which it is played consumes a substantial share of the attention of those who think it's very important to be IN. To those of us who don't care about being IN, the game is irrelevant. It's up to those of you who care about being IN to decide among yourselves who has the authority to determine what orthodoxy is. It's really none of my business.

I don't "reject" either the Church or the Bible, I just don't accept either one as the sole source of spiritual guidance.

[ScottRC]

I think determining orthodoxy is a game that religious institutions and the people who inhabit them play to determine who is IN and who is OUT.

So the nascent Church was simply "playing a game" when they spread the Gospel?

That's a new one for me...

This game and the rules by which it is played consumes a substantial share of the attention of those who think it's very important to be IN. To those of us who don't care about being IN, the game is irrelevant. It's up to those of you who care about being IN to decide among yourselves who has the authority to determine what orthodoxy is. It's really none of my business.

So orthodoxy has nothing to do with a sincere desire to seek the truth, but is simply a "game"?

I don't "reject" either the Church or the Bible, I just don't accept either one as the sole source of spiritual guidance.

Again, you've made it quite clear what you REJECT, but I'm wondering if you'd offer up what you DO accept at your sole source of spiritual guidance... please.

[ordinaryguy]

No arrogance was intended, the RCC does hold that the Church here on earth is the Mystical Body of Christ.

Yeah, the most repugnant thing about it is that the arrogance is unintended and unrecognized.

By the “fullness of faith” I meant to imply the fullness as described here: “…Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. Decree on Ecumenism, Vatican II, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964

With that said the RCC holds that other faiths…”have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (ibid)

JoeT

Well, see, to me salvation is not the point. If there is an afterlife, and I wake up in it, I'll consider it a bonus and a pleasant surprise. But there are far more useful and important things to do with this life than to obsess about the next one.

[ScottRC]

Yeah, the most repugnant thing about it is that the arrogance is unintended and unrecognized.

Other than just the name calling... any chance you can explain why you believe these things?. I just can't see the logic behind these unsupported opinions.

But there are far more useful and important things to do with this life than to obsess about the next one.

Agreed...

[ordinaryguy]

So the nascent Church was simply "playing a game" when they spread the Gospel?

You didn't mention spreading the gospel. You asked who I thought had the final authority to determine orthodoxy. Whole different subject.

That's a new one for me...

Maybe you should get out more.

So orthodoxy has nothing to do with a sincere desire to seek the truth, but is simply a "game"?

Not for me. But if it does for you, go for it.

Again, you've made it quite clear what you REJECT, but I'm wondering if you'd offer up what you DO accept at your sole source of spiritual guidance... please.

Again, I don't REJECT anything except the notion that any one source has a monopoly on spiritual truth.

[ordinaryguy]

Other than just the name calling...

I haven't called you or anybody else names. I'm just telling you that I find the RCC's claim to be the mystical body of Christ arrogant, and that this arrogance is all the more repugnant for being unrecognized. Kind of like a person who says, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are colored folks."

any chance you can explain why you believe these things?

Probably not to somebody like yourself who cares a lot about orthodoxy. If I thought you truly, TRULY cared and genuinely wanted to understand my thinking, and weren't just trying to convert or convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I might be persuaded to try, but we're not even close to that point yet.

... I just can't see the logic behind these unsupported opinions.

Well, there you go. That's exactly why I doubt it would be productive for either of us.

[ScottRC]

I haven't called you or anybody else names. I'm just telling you that I find the RCC's claim to be the mystical body of Christ arrogant, and that this arrogance is all the more repugnant for being unrecognized.

Just a figure of speech... calling the claim "arrogant" and the follow up "repugnant" is simply non-productive without offering any explanation or support.

Kind of like a person who says, "Oh, no, I'm not a racist. Some of my best friends are colored folks."

This red herring is just as bad... I really could care less what you think it is "kind of like" when you have yet to explain your reasoning behind your assertion that the claim is "arrogant".

If I thought you truly, TRULY cared and genuinely wanted to understand my thinking,

I'm not going to beg... ;)

and weren't just trying to convert or convince me that you're right and I'm wrong, I might be persuaded to try, but we're not even close to that point yet.

I can assure you I have no interest in converting you... and while I understand that it's a lot easier to just shoot down the beliefs of others, sometimes it is just good manners to explain your own beliefs when you feel the need to interject your two cents into a discussion.

[ordinaryguy]

I notice that when you choose to deliberately mis-represent what I say, you neglect to provide the quote. Coincidence? I think not. Let's see what actually was said:

I quoted you accurately and verbatim, and I did not misrepresent what you wrote.

I SAID:
The key is how you reach that understanding. Do you simply read what is said and take it at face value, or do you bend it to fit your beliefs. The first is not interpretation - the second is.

Now note, I was giving a contrast and at no point did I say or suggest that it was a definition.

Whether you label it as a "definition" or not, the plain meaning of your words and the point of your "contrast" is that to "read what is said and take it at face value" is not interpretation, whereas to read it and "bend it to fit your beliefs is interpretation. The contradiction between this meaning of the word and your earlier usage of it, "Interpretation means to understand the original intent" is clear. Your continuing refusal to explain or even acknowledge this contradiction belies your feigned indignation at being misrepresented.

Now can we continue this discussion by handling views that you don't agree with some degree of honesty? I asked you once before because of mis-representation of what I said to quote me if you plan to refer to what I said, and you chose not to do so once again when you decided to mis-represent me.

If you cannot back you claims with the truth, then is your position worth defending?

I have been honest and truthful throughout this discussion, and I will to continue to be so.

[Tj3]

I quoted you accurately and verbatim, and I did not misrepresent what you wrote.

You claimed that it was a definition, and no one can honestly make such a claim. Even if you had a bad day and mis-read what was said, it has been explained to you a few times, and yet you still deliberately carry on mis-representing it.

[ordinaryguy]

You claimed that it was a definition, and no one can honestly make such a claim. Even if you had a bad day and mis-read what was said, it has been explained to you a few times, and yet you still deliberately carry on mis-representing it.

Ohh, for crying out loud! If you think this discussion is about whether that particular statement of yours meets the criteria for "a definition", we really do have here a failure to communicate.

The discussion is about is whether the process of reading a sacred text like the Bible, formulating an understanding of its meanings, and considering their implications for our behavior, is encompassed by the commonly-used and generally-agreed meaning of the word "interpretation". I think that it is.

Without a doubt, some interpretations are more accurate, (feel free to insert other synonyms here... correct, true, right, reasonable, complete, convincing, persuasive, etc.) than others. I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is the notion that a human mind, yours, mine, or anyone else's, can understand the meaning of a printed text, sacred or not, without performing an act of interpretation. It is cognitively impossible. Reading is interpretation which, done successfully, leads to comprehension and understanding.

Your usage (notice, I'm not saying that you called it "a definition") of the word, in answer to my very first question, "What do you mean by interpretation?", was the closest you've come to making sense in this whole discussion. You said:

Interpretation means to understand the original intent--post #110

I'm sure you try to do that when you read the Bible, and that you succeed most of the time.

[Tj3]

Ohh, for crying out loud! If you think this discussion is about whether or not that particular statement of yours meets the criteria for "a definition", we really do have here a failure to communicate.

We do indeed. Please read what I said more carefully and maybe we can avoid further "failures to communicate.". Again, it would help if, when you wish to refer to csomething that I said, if you take the time to quote it, rather than give your variant understanding / modification of what I said. Now as to what this discussion is about is one thing, but you were the one who made a false claim about how I defined interpretation. That was not me who went off on this sidetrack.

After all, if you think that I am wrong, then you would be far more effective in your argument to validate that belief if you deal honestly and straightforwardly with what I actually said, and in context. If you manipulate what I said, and then argue against that, it weakens your argument because it appears that you are unable to refute what I actually said. Just a bit of free advice!

Now can we move forward without further discussion on this point, and get back to the topic at hand?

[ordinaryguy]

Again, it would help if, when you wish to refer to csomething that I said, if you take the time to quote it, rather than give your variant understanding / modification of what I said.

I have quoted your statements, carefully and accurately, without modification or distortion of meaning.

After all, if you think that I am wrong, then you would be far more effective in your argument to validate that belief if you deal honestly and straightforwardly with what I actually said, and in context.

I have done so scrupulously in the past, and will continue to do so in the future.

If you manipulate what I said, and then argue against that, it weakens your argument because it appears that you are unable to refute what I actually said.

I have not done so in the past and will not do so in the future.

Just a bit of free advice!

I am grateful for your generosity.

Now can we move forward without further discussion on this point, and get back to the topic at hand?

Yes.

[JoeT777]

The body of Christ.

1 Cor 12:27-28
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually.
NKJV

Nowhere does scripture say that we must be members of any denomination.



That is not true in the sense that you are referring to "The Church" (Your denomination).

It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body. Not a group of likeminded churches or a group of likeminded people in a room. But a body with Christ at the head. A hierarchy with a list of offices; Apostles, prophets, theologians etc…Clearly depicted is one “Mystical Body of Christ”; only one church. Not Lutherans, plus Calvinists, plus Baptist, plus Methodists, etc or plus any of 30,000 other post-Protestant era congregations; at least not until the schism is healed

1 Cor 12: 12 For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. …13 For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free: and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [The real presence of Christ] 14 For the body also is not one member, but many…27 Now you are the body of Christ and members of member. 28 And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors: after that miracles: then the graces of healings, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? 30 Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But be zealous for the better gifts. And I show unto you yet a more excellent way.

Sorry if my previous statement about the “Mystical Body of Christ” seemed arrogant. I can be when the need arises, but that wasn’t the case here.

JoeT

[ScottRC]

It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body. Not a group of likeminded churches or a group of likeminded people in a room. But a body with Christ at the head.

Well said Joe... even a look at the church described in Acts shows that the notion that Chrisianity is meant to be a unified body is quite evident:

Acts 15:2 And when Paul and Barnabas had great dissension and debate with them, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and some others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue.

There were false teachers in Judea and how did the early church settle the issue?

By looking for a scripture to "interpret itself"?

Nope... the went to their LEADERS... the Apostles and elders.

And after these LEADERS decided upon the issue, it was settled:
Acts 16:4 Now while they were passing through the cities, they were delivering the decrees which had been decided upon by the apostles and elders who were in Jerusalem, for them to observe.

"for them to observe." They were not to look for a verse in scripture and decided for themselves, they were ORDERED by those in authority to follow their decisions...

Why? James makes it clear that their decisions were equal to the Holy Spirit:
Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials... "

[Tj3]

I have quoted your statements, carefully and accurately, without modification or distortion of meaning.

Actually, you did not. You pulled an excerpt out of one sentence, and using that claimed that I said something that I did not. Now have a little shame and just admit that you erred or something and let's move on. Defending the indefensible does not enhance your credibility.

[Tj3]

It’s interesting that you should mention 1 Cor 12, but only quote a few words. It supports that the Catholic Church is one body.

No, it does not. There were no denominations at that time, the Roman denomination was formed in 325AD and this passage speaks of the body of Christ, the body of all believers, not a denomination.

If you wish for me to believe otherwise, show me anywhere in the NT where we find a denomination.

[JoeT777]

No, it does not. There were no denominations at that time, the Roman denomination was formed in 325AD and this passage speaks of the body of Christ, the body of all believers, not a denomination.

If you wish for me to believe otherwise, show me anywhere in the NT where we find a denomination.

No I don't wish for you to believe on my account. But I'd rather you believe on Christ's account. No, not on my account at all, but on account of God's love. (Jer 31:3), (Is 54: 10; cf. 54:8) A God who it is said 'so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son for God is love' (John 3:16), (1 John 4:8, 16.)

Therefore what you believe is something between you and God. For me, a fallible human, I've found the Roman Church a reliable refuge, a place of strength. Pope Paul VI best describes our faith as follows:

The Credo of the People of God (in part)

Put above all, we place our unshakable confidence in the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church, and in theological faith upon which rests the life of the Mystical Body.

To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.

WE BELIEVE in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels, and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.

God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light.

We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love.

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church's members if they do not shun His grace.

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, "where sin abounded grace did more abound."


We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory. In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude. By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.


We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church. But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.

This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation.

We believe in the life eternal.

We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is, and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.
So, the things I've been writing aren't original thought. They're not new (obviously being 2,000 years old). Rather I've been telling you of those things which I've come to love, albeit with my imperfect humanity.