[arcura]

ordinaryguy,
Jesus told His apostles that they were the Kingdom and they became the bishops of His Church.
Jesus told Peter that he was the rock on which He would build His Church and gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter which made Peter Jesus' Vicar and Prime Minister of The earthly Kingdom which Jesus so established.
Thus The Church is the earthly Kingdom of God but not the heavenly Kingdom which the earthly Kingdom is supposed to be a reflection of.
Notice that in Revelation we are told that the twelve will assist Jesus the Judge at the end of the age.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

The claim that the Catholic Church constitutes whole of the Kingdom of God on earth is identical in form to the claim that the Jewish tribe is God's chosen people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "identical in form". The claims strike me as quite different.

The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual matter,

"Absolutely" is a strong word. To be sure, the individual has work to do which cannot be done for her by another, but this is a long way from the sort of individualism you impute to Jesus's teaching. His chastisement of the Pharisees does not commit him to the claim that the individual is the sole locus of redemptive activity, for one. For another, Jesus emphasizes community and interdependence with some frequency. Here again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "an absolutely individual matter", but on any straightforward construal of that locution it isn't at all evident to me what would even make it true. (Perhaps it depends upon which bits one singles out as pertaining to "the essence of his message" and which bits one removes to the periphery.)

and that membership in this or that group has no bearing on it whatsoever.

I suppose a lot turns on how one construes group membership. If one were to think of it as something like joining a club, then I'm inclined to think you may be on to something. But Catholics don't think of membership in the Church in these terms, and to claim otherwise would be to indulge in caricature. I don't get the sense that many other Christians think of it this way either. Jesus displays a collectivist tendency, and this is why the Catholic Church--among others--has greeted with suspicion attempts to render his message into an individualistic idiom (a program which reached a frenzy of implausibility with the Hippie appropriation of Jesus in the late sixties). He certainly wasn't a kind of Horatio Alger of the spiritual life. I don't find Jesus disposing his followers to go it alone but to work together, to help one another, and this is not presented in a way that suggests that one's doing so is inessential. Communion, with God and with others, is indispensable.

Now, if you take umbrage with what you perceive to be the self-satisfaction of some, that's fine. The Catholic Church does not teach that just by virtue of being Catholic one is guaranteed Heaven. This ought to dispose Catholics to be humble. But--and this is just a bit of anecdote--when I think of the many times I've been cornered by someone aggressively assuring me of his salvation it has always been a non-Catholic (and I do mean "aggressively"). The vast majority of Catholics (and Orthodox) I've known find this to be at best distasteful and at worst sinfully presumptuous.

[ordinaryguy]

ordinaryguy,
Jesus told His apostles that they were the Kingdom and they became the bishops of His Church.
Jesus told Peter that he was the rock on which He would build His Church and gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter which made Peter Jesus' Vicar and Prime Minister of The earthly Kingdom which Jesus so established.
Thus The Church is the earthly Kingdom of God but not the heavenly Kingdom which the earthly Kingdom is supposed to be a reflection of.
Notice that in Revelation we are told that the twelve will assist Jesus the Judge at the end of the age.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

It's OK, I don't begrudge you your certainty. But if I were to adopt it for myself, it would be a cop-out.

[ordinaryguy]

I'm not sure what you mean by "identical in form". The claims strike me as quite different.

The similarity lies in their shared doctrine that the individual person may obtain access to and find favor (mercy, forgiveness, salvation, reconciliation, reunion, redemption) with God only through membership in the group and participation in its rituals and sacraments.

"Absolutely" is a strong word. To be sure, the individual has work to do which cannot be done for her by another, but this is a long way from the sort of individualism you impute to Jesus's teaching. His chastisement of the Pharisees does not commit him to the claim that the individual is the sole locus of redemptive activity, for one. For another, Jesus emphasizes community and interdependence with some frequency. Here again, I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it is "an absolutely individual matter", but on any straightforward construal of that locution it isn't at all evident to me what would even make it true. (Perhaps it depends upon which bits one singles out as pertaining to "the essence of his message" and which bits one removes to the periphery.)

Sure, he recognized that community and interdependence are essential elements of the human experience. But harmonious social relationships and shared participation in group rituals are the fruits and consequences of the individual's reconciliation with God, not the cause of it.

I suppose a lot turns on how one construes group membership. If one were to think of it as something like joining a club, then I'm inclined to think you may be on to something. But Catholics don't think of membership in the Church in these terms, and to claim otherwise would be to indulge in caricature. I don't get the sense that many other Christians think of it this way either. Jesus displays a collectivist tendency, and this is why the Catholic Church--among others--has greeted with suspicion attempts to render his message into an individualistic idiom (a program which reached a frenzy of implausibility with the Hippie appropriation of Jesus in the late sixties). He certainly wasn't a kind of Horatio Alger of the spiritual life. I don't find Jesus disposing his followers to go it alone but to work together, to help one another, and this is not presented in a way that suggests that one's doing so is inessential. Communion, with God and with others, is indispensable.

Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it precedes and enables communion with both God and others.

Now, if you take umbrage with what you perceive to be the self-satisfaction of some, that's fine. The Catholic Church does not teach that just by virtue of being Catholic one is guaranteed Heaven.

No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.

This ought to dispose Catholics to be humble. But--and this is just a bit of anecdote--when I think of the many times I've been cornered by someone aggressively assuring me of his salvation it has always been a non-Catholic (and I do mean "aggressively"). The vast majority of Catholics (and Orthodox) I've known find this to be at best distasteful and at worst sinfully presumptuous.

I agree that Catholics are usually less inclined to get in people's face with their presumptions than some other groups, and I thank them for that much, at least.

[Akoue]

The similarity lies in their shared doctrine that the individual person may obtain access to and find favor (mercy, forgiveness, salvation, reconciliation, reunion, redemption) with God only through membership in the group and participation in its rituals and sacraments.

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. The Church believes that there will be non-Catholics in Heaven. It even believes there may be non-Christians (e.g. Jews) in Heaven.

No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.

Again, the Church does not teach this.

[Akoue]

Sure, he recognized that community and interdependence are essential elements of the human experience. But harmonious social relationships and shared participation in group rituals are the fruits and consequences of the individual's reconciliation with God, not the cause of it.


Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it preceeds and enables communion with both God and others.

I'm not so sure about that. He tells his followers to reconcile with one another before seeking reconciliation with him in prayer. Communion--without which he tells his followers in Jn.6 they have no life in them--is a communal act, so that communion with others is not simply an effect of communion with Christ. (In 1Cor.11 communion is clearly practiced communally.) Again, I don't mean to diminish the role of the individual, but only to locate that within the communal context in which it has its real efficacy.

[arcura]

Akoue,
I agree whole heartedly with you.
You do know that which The Church teaches.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[Akoue]

Akoue,
I agree whole heartedly with you.
You do know that which The Church teaches.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Thank you for your kind words, Fred.

[JoeT777]

The claim that the Catholic Church constitutes whole of the Kingdom of God on earth is identical in form to the claim that the Jewish tribe is God's chosen people. …
The essence of his message was that the relationship between God and His children is an absolutely individual …

Yes, it bothers me in the same way and for the same reason that Jesus was bothered by the self-righteousness of the scribes and pharisees who considered themselves to be specially favored by God.

The similarity lies in their shared doctrine that the individual person may obtain access to and find favor (mercy, forgiveness, salvation, reconciliation, reunion, redemption) with God only through membership in the group and participation in its rituals and sacraments.

Sure, he recognized that community and interdependence are essential elements of the human experience. But harmonious social relationships and shared participation in group rituals are the fruits and consequences of the individual's reconciliation with God, not the cause of it.

Reconciliation and redemption occurs between the individual and God, and it preceeds and enables communion with both God and others.

No, but it does teach that not being Catholic guarantees hell, which is far more offensive.
I agree that Catholics are usually less inclined to get in people's face with their presumptions than some other groups, and I thank them for that much, at least.

Christ established the kingdom of God on earth, manifested His Father and Himself by deeds and words, and completed His work by His death, resurrection and glorious Ascension and by the sending of the Holy Spirit. DEI VERBUM V 17

Ordinaryguy, et al:

It's not hubristic pronouncing the Kingdom of God. You might recall John the Baptist, as foreseen in Isaiah's prophesies, heralded the coming of the Messiah. And after that John was delivered up, Jesus came in Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying: The time is accomplished and the kingdom of God is at hand. (Mark 1:15) There cometh after me one mightier (Mark 1:14,15). Like anything said to be “at hand,” anyone hearing would expect the Kingdom to be within reach, which of course it was. Its patriarchs were chosen, a hierarchy was established with Peter at its head (Cf. Matt 16:18) and it was commissioned to feed the sheep of the Kingdom with the knowledge of the good news heard in the Gospel (Cf. John 21: 15-18).

Is our Christ so cruel that he would send his children out to seek that which can't be found? Sending his disciples out he said, But seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice: and all these things shall be added unto you. (Luke 12:31)

Also, why did he preach allegorically in the parable of the brides maids; Then shall the kingdom of heaven be like to ten virgins, who taking their lamps went out to meet the bridegroom and the bride. And five of them were foolish and five wise. But the five foolish, having taken their lamps, did not take oil with them. But the wise took oil in their vessels with the lamps. And the bridegroom tarrying, they all slumbered and slept. And at midnight there was a cry made: Behold the bridegroom cometh. Go ye forth to meet him. Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell and buy for yourselves. 10 Now whilst they went to buy the bridegroom came: and they that were ready went in with him to the marriage. And the door was shut. But at last came also the other virgins, saying: Lord, Lord, open to us. But he answering said: Amen I say to you, I know you not. Watch ye therefore, because you know not the day nor the hour. (Matthew 25: 1-14)

Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kinds of fishes. Which, when it was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth. So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just. And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Have ye understood all these things? They say to him: Yes. (Matt 21:47:51)

The Kingdom is the Church today and in the end the wicked will be cast out of the kingdom. This Kingdom reigning over unbelievers matters little because they do not subject themselves to the reign of God. Those Christians who perilously hold themselves out of the kingdom are usually free thinkers, unwilling to subject their thoughts to the authority of the Church. Failing to subject our intellect to the discipline of the Church can have disastrous results. Those who hold the Church as the Kingdom of God know that whoever thinks as he pleases will do as he pleases. Intellectual order is license in moral order. Conversely, an undisciplined order in the intellectual order is license in immorality. Disorder in the intellect causes a “disorder in the heart, and vice-versa” and thus disseminates immorality, free morals begets immorality, (Cf. Don Felix Sarda y Salvany, El Liberalismo es Pecado, 1886)

Christ established this kingdom with a head, an authority to turn to, a guide, a rule. A single individual does not make a kingdom, a single family or house does not make a kingdom. A kingdom is made of many individual families, many individuals, each disciplined in the rule of the Kingdom. Kingdoms have heads of state, various princes of state; its rule is generally autocratic by nature. As an example, the Roman Catholic Church is such a Kingdom having landed boundaries, elected patristic ruler the Pope, and a College of Cardinals, commissioned by Christ to teach the Word of God.

One man does not make a Kingdom; one family does not make a Kingdom. If, just suppose if, Christ's mission was for each man to be sole arbiter over his faith, then how many different faiths would we have? Instead of One Catholic Church, wouldn't we have several, more than several tens of thousands, or how about some 30,000 Protestant free thinking Churches. But we Catholic know only one as Christ prayed; And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me. That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (John 17:20,21)

So you see O'guy I wasn't being hubristic at all, just True to my faith.

To set the record straight, no righteousness was claimed for myself just for the Church as the Kingdom of God.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT777
Very well said.
Fred

[ordinaryguy]

Actually, the Catholic Church doesn't teach that. The Church believes that there will be non-Catholics in Heaven. It even believes there may be non-Christians (e.g., Jews) in Heaven.



Again, the Church does not teach this.

I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?

[JoeT777]

I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?

The RC Church has not changed - in 2,000 years.

O’guy, et al:

You might remember the parable of the wheat and tars (Cf. Matt 13); We see that it clearly and plainly relates the good farmer and his field with the kingdom of heaven . Catholics hold that only in the Church is the proper sustenance given to the seeds of grace planted by God’s graces. That’s not to say that the wheat of faith can’t grow outside this field, however it does so with great effort. Therefore, we hold that the fullness of faith can only be found within the Church. This is quite a bit different from the Protestant take on this issue, where each individual blade of wheat takes it own sustenance directly form a little patch of the bible.

I cannot on my own, nor can any individual Catholic (including Bishops), negotiate any portion of Church doctrine. For two reasons; one, it’s not negotiable; two, it’s far beyond my pew warming position in the Church. Unlike the former President, Jimmy Carter, who feels free to travel abroad to negotiate US foreign policy outside the current government, Catholics are constrained with the discipline by their faith. The following is a passage from Vatican II’s, Decree on Ecumenism which might make it clearer. It illustrates how our Church approaches cooperative and uniting efforts with other Christian churches. I’ve highlighted the most relevant parts.

In this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church --- for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Without doubt, the differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church --- whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline or concerning the structure of the Church --- do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion.

The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brother by the children of the Catholic Church.

Moreover, some, even very many, of the most significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy spirit, as well as visible elements. All of these, which come from Christ and lead back to him, belong by right to the one Church of Christ.

The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, can aptly give access to the communion of salvation.

It follows that the separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from the defects already mentioned, 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.

Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom he has given new birth into one body, and whom he has quickened to newness of life --- that unity which the Holy Scriptures and the ancient

Tradition of the Church proclaims. For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessing of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God. During its pilgrimage on earth, this people, though guided by God’s gentle wisdom, according to his hidden designs, until it shall happily arrive at the fullness of eternal glory in the heavenly Jerusalem.

Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, 21 November 1964

JoeT

[Akoue]

I'm really glad to hear this. When did they change it?

I'm unaware of any change in this regard.

[ordinaryguy]

It's not hubristic pronouncing the Kingdom of God.

No, what's hubristic is trying to limit and circumscribe and contain the Kingdom within the confines of a particular religious institution, and to label all other manifestations of it as heresies and delusions. That's hubristic.

You might recall John the Baptist, as foreseen in Isaiah's prophesies, heralded the coming of the Messiah.

Yes, the very same John the Baptist who said:

8 Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 9 And even now the ax is laid to the root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." 10 So the people asked him, saying, "What shall we do then?" 11 He answered and said to them, "He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise." Luke 3:8-11

The similarity with this experience early in Jesus' public ministry is striking:

16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, F29 To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; 19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." F30 20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, "Is this not Joseph's son?" 23 He said to them, "You will surely say this proverb to Me, 'Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum, F31 do also here in Your country.' " 24 Then He said, "Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; 26 but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, F32 in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian." 28 So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way. Luke 4:16-30

In both cases, the clear message is that being a member of the "chosen people" is neither necessary nor sufficient to secure favor with God.

Is our Christ so cruel that he would send his children out to seek that which can't be found?

Of course not, the Kingdom is easy to find if we look in the right place.

20 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; 21 nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' F116 For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21

The Kingdom is the Church today

Nope, sorry, I'm still not buying it.

Kingdoms have heads of state, various princes of state; its rule is generally autocratic by nature. As an example, the Roman Catholic Church is such a Kingdom having landed boundaries, elected patristic ruler the Pope, and a College of Cardinals, commissioned by Christ to teach the Word of God.

Yes, earthly kingdoms go to great lengths to be dominant and obvious. Not at all like "leaven hid in three measures of flour", or "a treasure hid in a field", or "a pearl of great price".

If, just suppose if, Christ's mission was for each man to be sole arbiter over his faith, then how many different faiths would we have? Instead of One Catholic Church, wouldn't we have several, more than several tens of thousands, or how about some 30,000 Protestant free thinking Churches.

Given that so many others do exist, I don't see how this little rhetorical gambit helps to make your case.

5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." John 3:5-8

This doesn't sound like a teaching intended to promote good order and discipline in towing the party line. Notice also the lack of any mention of an institutional role in bringing about the new birth in the Spirit.

So you see O'guy I wasn't being hubristic at all, just True to my faith.

To set the record straight, no righteousness was claimed for myself just for the Church as the Kingdom of God.

I have no ability or desire to judge whether you personally in your innermost heart of hearts are guilty of spiritual pride. But the doctrine and teaching of the Catholic Church, and many other religious organizations, both Christian and non-Christian, do often seem to engender it in their adherents. But of course that's just my opinion and I have no pronouncements by Bishops or Cardinals or Popes to back me up, so those of you who put great stock in such things are free to disregard it if you like. I'm OK with that.

[ordinaryguy]

The RC Church has not changed - in 2,000 years.

For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.

I thought not.

[Akoue]

limit and circumscribe and contain the Kingdom

The quite obvious reply is, of course, to say that you've got the wrong end of the stick. What reason have we to see this as a limitation in any problematic sense? Things have boundaries. Big deal.

Yes, the very same John the Baptist who said:
The similarity with this experience early in Jesus' public ministry is striking:

In both cases, the clear message is that being a member of the "chosen people" is neither necessary nor sufficient to secure favor with God.

Well, sure, we don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian. I'm unaware of anyone since the first century who's claimed otherwise.

Of course not, the Kingdom is easy to find if we look in the right place.

And where is that? And how do we, how does any one of us, determine which is the right place?

But of course that's just my opinion and I have no pronouncements by Bishops or Cardinals or Popes to back me up, so those of you who put great stock in such things are free to disregard it if you like. I'm OK with that.

Cute.

[ordinaryguy]

Things have boundaries.

But the Kingdom is not a "thing", and whatever boundaries it may have are different from those that define the Catholic Church, or the Christian religion.

Well, sure, we don't have to be Jewish in order to be Christian. I'm unaware of anyone since the first century who's claimed otherwise.

The point is that we don't have to be a member of any particular tribe, nation, religion, church, club, or any other group in order to be reconciled with God. Participation in such groups does indeed confer benefits, but that isn't one of them. Redemption occurs as a direct interaction between the individual and God; no institutional intermediary is involved.

And where is that? And how do we, how does any one of us, determine which is the right place?

"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.

[Akoue]

But the Kingdom is not a "thing", and whatever boundaries it may have are different from those that define the Catholic Church, or the Christian religion.

In some sense of "thing" it sure is. It has properties, it's the subject of predication, it's even an historical reality (so it has temporal boundaries too). What warrants the second claim?

The point is that we don't have to be a member of any particular tribe, nation, religion, church, club, or any other group in order to be reconciled with God. Participation in such groups does indeed confer benefits, but that isn't one of them. Redemption occurs as a direct interaction between the individual and God; no institutional intermediary is involved.

I should think the point is that we don't have to be a member of any particular tribe or nation. We don't have to be Jewish (a matter of some controversy among early Christians). Redemption is a heavily mediated process. Again, I don't buy the individualism. And I'm losing my grip on what "institutional" is supposed to mean here.

"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.

Okay. But that's going to need some unpacking, isn't it? I would have thought that we seek the Kingdom within *together*, as a community of the faithful, and not individually in our separate corners.

[arcura]

ordinaryguy,
When Jesus said, "The kingdom is within you" He was speaking to His apostles who were to become the first bishops of His Church Kingdom on this earth.
Whether you "buy" that The Church is God's Kingdom on earth or not does not change the fact that the majority of Christians (over one billion) do believe it and are members of it.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

[JoeT777]

"The Kingdom of God is within you". Start there.

Lets start here but first lets look at some context.

Hosanna in the highest, the Messianic King rode into Jerusalem by happenstance passed a fig tree. Christ was hungry yet the tree of life was unable to feed Christ, or anybody else for that matter. The tree was bear of fruit, only leaves. Simply being in the presence of Christ the tree, the Jewish nation, which considered itself the Kingdom of God, withered and died. Within 70 years the Jewish nation would pass.

Can you not see allegorical inferences here? We know that a Kingdom, a priestly Kingdom of God was promised to Moses on Mount Sinai, and you shall be to me a priestly kingdom, and a holy nation. (Exodus 19:6). The Pharisees considered themselves in the Kingdom of God. But, like the fig tree, they failed to bear fruit for God.

Teaching within the Temple, Christ told the parable of the land owner with a vineyard. The landowner walled in the vineyard and hired out the harvesting. When the owner sent his servants to collect the harvest they were killed. Thinking that he had to thinking more authority needed to be shown sent his son. But, they killed him also. What, the question is, should the owner do to the hirelings?

Christ's response was clear cut, “The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes.” (Matt 21:42) Metaphorically, the stone the builder rejected was Christ, who is to be the cornerstone of the re-constituted Kingdom. Thus, Christ tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom of God promised in Exodus 19 would be given to another: “the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits” (Cf. Matt 21: 43-46).

And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come, he answering them and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation. Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17:20-21) The Kingdom in these verses is the same Kingdom of God promised Moses, now overseen by the Pharisees. “But first [H]e must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation” (Luke 17: 25) that came to pass when Christ was tried in the Sanhedrin. It can't be observed, because they were living it, just as we can't see the outcome of our current economic woes.

Catholics sometimes look to the firstfuits to explain how the Kingdom of God can be Scripturally shown. But now Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that sleep: For by a man came death: and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But everyone in his own order: the firstfruits, Christ: then they that are of Christ, who have believed in his coming. Afterwards the end: when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father: when he shall have brought to nought all principality and power and virtue. For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Corinthians 15: 20-25). Christ hands to God everyone in their order and then afterwards delivers up the Kingdom of God, not to be confused with the Kingdom of Heaven. We know at the ascension Christ went to the Kingdom of Heaven, the abode of the Divine. Why would Christ deliver to His Father his own Kingdom, rather it is understood as the Kingdom that produced the first fruits and being the one founded on Christ, who appointed Peter as its head, who commissioned the Kingdom to Teach.

The Kingdom of God is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the bride of Christ.

JoeT