" I will ask again -- was that not yourself which testified on these pages previously of having received baptism of the Spirit in a Pentecostal Church?"
No. I never received baptism of the Spirit in a Pentecostal church. I do have dear Pentecostal friends (Church of God in Christ), whose church I never attended. Through generous befriending and dialogue they helped me recover faith in Christ, Whom I had--- through my sinful fault --- abandoned in my late teens-early 20's.
"While you had also shared that you were raised in the Roman Catholic Church...but for a time had not attended, etc?"
Yes.
"And then here you say --- "the Church"?"
Yes. And I mean "the Catholic" Church in both senses: as in "all the Baptized" (because Baptism is entrance into the Catholic Church --- for you as well as for me, BlueDragon) as well as "in communion with Peter and his succssors".
(This kind of discussion often suffers from the failure to make distinctions between the different, though mostly concentric and mostly coherent --- multiple senses of the word "Church." I will try to keep these senses explicit, without becoming totally exasperating, I hope.)
"Since when was the Roman Catholic church ever exclusively "the" church? It most certainly was not in the earliest beginnings."
In the early beginnings, before Peter came to the city of Rome, there was no "See of Rome," of course. But there was Peter. And if you were in communion with Peter and the other Apostles, you were a member of the Catholic Church (the church cata holos, the whole Church) whereas if you were with someone not in communion with Peter (e.g. Simon Magus) you were not a member of the Catholic Church.
"Ah, but then in later centuries took up the trappings of Empire of Rome as that disintegrated and dissolved, blending that with "Church"."
The "trappings" do not make up the Church. There were, in the earliest centuries, FIVE patriarchal sees --- Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Rome --- and none of them except Rome had precisely Roman trappings (Constantinople being a special case, since Constantinople was "Roman" for 1,000 years beyond the existence of the Western Empire). But the other local Churches --- even as far away as Mosul (Iraq) or Xi'an (western China)--- which were not culturally or politically Roman at all --- were still Catholic if they had not broken communion with Peter.
"The idea itself the the Roman Catholic Church (which Catholic insist should be called only The Catholic Church).."
Thank you. That's much to be preferred..
"...is indeed The Church, either in entirety, or as central authority is a Romish fantasy (and always has been!)..."
...corroborated by certain, uh, trifles of historic documentary and physical evidence...
"...possibly reinforced here and there by mistaking correlation (of Spirit) for causation (themselves!).."That's too complicated for me to even make out, not knowing who are the exact "themselves" of whom you speak. For a really good and reliable "himself", however, I would recommend Irenaeus of Lyon. OK, carry on...
"-- when the cause is God's own grace & mercy -- which can be found in full abundance far outside the narrow confines of Roman Catholicism."
I certainly agree that God's grace and mercy fall outside of any confines whatsoever. Although these people, too, are ordered (that is, being oriented toward) the Church, themselves, even if they are ever so far from a visible, institutional affiliation.
"One need not accept popery in order to enjoy communion, through Christ, with God."
This is true. I hope you are using the word "popery" with a wry sense of irony --- as my best popish friends do. Otherwise, be prepared to be called one of the --- brace yourself--- "separated brethren"! :o)
" BUT -- that concept is among many that Roman Catholics (including popes) have long asserted is a requirement, even one which Christ Himself would require of all human beings (if one listens closely enough to Romanists)."
Ditto the word "Romanists" --- you separated brethren, you!
BTW, I'm about out of time here for the nonce. Concerning your statement about people being saved outside of the Catholic Church, let me refer you to an authoritative statement of what the Catholic Church says about that:
| Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines 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." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation..." |
Please read it with plenty of context (paragraphs before and after, at least) so you'll get the bigger picture and not fall into some misunderstanding.
You're certainly Catholic.
Tagline :o)
But now -- the Roman Catholic Church desires for itself to be called "The" Catholic Church.
I flatly refuse to extend that sort of title to the RCC. It is a travesty wherein the word which was once an adjective has been converted into a pronoun, stretched to envelope all while applying to only one ecclesiastical community.
I cannot imagine that God actually wanted things to be the way they have turned out...
That ecclesiastical community was not the center of gravity or center of the Church -- and this "being in fellowship with Peter" which you speak of simply does not work after that man's death -- for it assumes that there was hierarchy among bishops from the beginning, which everyone understood was inheritable, with whomever the bishop of Rome was being Peter's foremost heir, etc.
The evidence is clearly against that being true to the degree that Romanists need for it to be...which means that those of Rome have been believing things which were not true, repeating those things, and even incorporating the not true elements into their own theology, as that developed.
I see no reason why I should now kneel down to carefully maintained distortions of truth.
I would sooner be DEAD than submit myself to lies in regards to God himself.
In instance of the RCC those surely did for many centuries, becoming part of the polity and sense of theology itself --- with justifications for having taken on the mechanisms of secular Empire invented along the way, as they went about what they did, and as I said -- blended those things of Empire in with the day-to-day functioning of the church -- including political considerations.
If there were to have been all along some pure and entirely holy church, infallible in it's teachings of faith and morals amidst all of that -- then it be as hidden as the less-than-fully visible fellowship of Spirit which unites any and all whom are (or would be) Christian today.
When error or excess -- lack or listlessness is perceived in any other ecclesia -- that is said by those of Rome to be proof that ---those people over there-- are not rightfully "The Church", but they themselves (those of Rome) still are, regardless of what transpires since portions of the RCC has been built over Peter's dead body, dontcha' know.
And soundly refuted by more than "trifles" and physical evidence, when it comes to the idea of Rome being the only bishopric which inherited what was bestowed upon Peter and the Apostles, by Christ.
Those of Rome were not able to get away with the assertion that their own so-called "See" was the top or headmost over all --- for many long centuries.
The first times bishops of Rome pressed for that -- they were rebuked, not acquiesced to, agreed with for that aspect, even if in course of discussion and decisions, from when Easter should be observed to being among those whom opposed the Donatists -- although those of Rome be in the end agreed with --- they were also reminded again and again that none had to unilaterally submit to demands made by Rome -- if those not have backing from widely in the Church.
Notice too in earliest centuries theological disputes --- never was there a bishop of Rome looked upon as a decider to whom all must defer to, while also noticing that men such as Athanasius was not of Rome, and neither was his bishop.
What these sort of things do equate to --- is that if it was the full intent from the very beginnings of the Church for all to turn and bow towards a bishop of Rome as Supreme (Universal) bishop of bishops --- that concept was was well hidden for HUNDREDS OF YEARS -- and as I mentioned (and can prove!) was opposed when those of Rome asserted that same, the first several times they did so. Was all of the Church both stupid and blind for those first centuries? They would have to have been, for what Rome came to eventually claim as it's own sole prerogatives be actual truth.
When are you and other Romanists going to stop blowing smoke concerning this issue of "papacy" (and plenty others)?
I can read, and study, and see for myself. The gig is up. Ok? And that -- regardless of how well you yourself can word things to avoid what is inconvenient, or redefine things to better fit with later [cough-cough] developments...
No longer can Rome assert and bluff, and oh-so-carefully word things -- in order to continue to maintain false claims towards history (which they long have, and on these pages Romanists still claim to be true) --- and expect those whom truly know better to then feel they need to afford the Church of Rome anything of the type of "respect" she claims is due that ekklesia alone, as if there and chiefly only there is "The Church" as you put it.
From my own perspective -- RC apologetic as it plays out down through the ranks, being not in agreement with even it's own more scholarly and honest historians -- ends up appearing as either falsehood or ignorance. And when not that, then the careful wordings which make that which is otherwise known to be not true, re-accepted as being true. It is fully like --- those of Rome believe their own PR, and then at times get mad at others for not accepting the "spin".
But I'm supposed to treat the promoters of Romanist narrative with kid gloves? And agree that "they" be allowed to control all narrative concerning history and theological "developments" also? Not in this life, not in mine...
You were not openly asking for that from me of course --- but all the soft-soaping in the world will not be enough to convince myself to accept things (and statements) which I know are simply not true!
It doesn't matter that among the RCC that many such things have by now been long believed to have been true, but as it turns out, were not -- not when today's investigative and communication tools are more powerful than ever -- we have near entire libraries at our fingertips --- none need accept the word of those who claim this-or-that, not at those times and places where the contrary has been well enough established otherwise -- and an individual can apprise enough of the written evidence (as that comes through translation into English, as for my own ability to access/analyze).
Being oriented towards the Church of Rome?
And there it is, people.
When those of Rome concede there are Christians elsewhere than in their own religious organization -- at this late date (after it finally sunk in that those persons were never coming back -- gone for 500 years, gone forever from the clutches of Rome) they lay rhetorical claim to those Christians whom they can no longer deny truly exist, even while many of the RCC church rhetorically bash those same so-called "separated brethren" 24/7 as the forum here has long exampled.
I don't know whether I should laugh, cry, or throw up!