Posted on 02/05/2015 2:50:39 PM PST by NYer
The Catholic Church is not just a building. It is the Body of Christ.
Romans 12:5
So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another
The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called “the Christian Church,” either.
The entity in question, of course, is just that: the very visible, worldwide Catholic Church, in which the 263rd successor of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II, teaches, governs and sanctifies, along with some 3,000 other bishops around the world, who are successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ.
As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as “Christians” (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called “the Church.” There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.
Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name—and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.
The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.
Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of “the Catholic Church.” He wrote, “Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church” (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.
Your comment; “way you use semantics...” The laborers were priests of His Church that Jesus sent out to spread His Good News.
The term “catholic” simply means “universal,” and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already “everywhere,” as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.
The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.
Again, it was already understood that the Church was “catholic” because — to adopt a modern expression — she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be “universal” in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that “the powers of death shall not prevail” against her (Mt 16:18).
https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
John 20:21-23
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd
Matthew. 28:19–20
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
But Jesus came near and spoke to them; All authority in heaven and on earth, he said, has been given to me; 19 you, therefore, must go out, making disciples of all nations, and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 20 teaching them to observe all the commandments which I have given you. And behold I am with you all through the days that are coming, until the consummation of the world.
18 And I tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; 19 and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 20 Then he strictly forbade them to tell any man that he, Jesus, was the Christ.
-—The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church——
So are you part of the Catholic Church (universal) or part of the Roman Catholic church...
I’m of the former...I will never bow down to Rome...
See tag line...
One should not spread false teachings that are contrary to the Truth of Jesus and His Catholic Church. It is the role of the clergy to preach the Good News of Jesus.
Why then should we ignore 2,000 years of accumulated insights from saints, theologians and scholars who are a lot more mature in Christ than we are?
The Ethiopian Eunuch knew this. When confronted with a mysterious passage from Isaiah (and there are many mysterious passages in Scripture) he made a common sense observation: he said he didn't understand it. Moreover, he followed this with a common sense deed: he asked the Church (in the person of Philip the Evangelist) for help in understanding it. And the Church gave it. That is what the Church does, for the Lord who breathed his Spirit into Scripture and the Lord who breathed his Spirit into the Church is one Lord (John 20:22; 2 Timothy 3:16).
That's why I think if the Ethiopian Eunuch were around today, he would drool over the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How wonderful to have the compendium of the Magisterium’s teaching concerning the fullness of Sacred Tradition, both biblical and extra-biblical — the very thing the Ethiopian asked for! Any Catholic who wants to study Scripture should start by learning from the Ethiopian’s sterling example. For as St. Paul told the Thessalonians, we are to stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions the apostles passed on to us, whether by word of mouth (that is, by Sacred Tradition) or by letter (that is, by Scripture) (2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Ethiopian Eunuch would not settle for part of God's gift; he wanted it all. So should we.
Feel free to read the whole article. http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-bible-alone.html
You have told us that you are a former Catholic that has rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Truth that Jesus commanded to the Catholic Church.
Matthew 12:25
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth
I sense ill feelings that are not explained about the Catholic Church.
For your information, there is no offical Roman Catholic Church, just media or Protestant bias. There is only One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This Church was established by Jesus over 2000 years ago. I think yours was established by man after that.
the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language.
Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.
your comment: “I’m of the former...I will never bow down to Rome”
Then you may be rejecting Jesus and His teaching through the Catholic Church.
Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction
It is not free from misrepresentation or erroneous interpretation.
The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in “66 books” is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16).
It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed.
In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of “Sacred Scripture” aside from the Old Testament; there was no “New Testament”; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.
Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen.
Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?
Please thank the Catholic monks for their works in preserving the written Bible.
Again you take Luke, 10:16 out of context..
It does not mean what you claim it does...
Faith in Jesus death, resurrection and work of the cross is all I need for my salvation...
I find it rather humorous the concept of not believing in Catholic church teaching means I reject Christ...
39 You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.
40 But you do not want to come to me to have life.
john 5
For many yes. For those who God was calling to be His the Catholic Church couldn't stop them.
No it's not. There is not such concept of "church" as the Catholic Church presents itself today found in scripture.
The Ethiopian Eunuch didn't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as true believers have today.
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
I suppose if Catholics want to remain like the Eunuch that is up to them.
Not ill feelings toward the Roman Catholic Church, just the adherents that claim you need Christ plus Roman Catholic Church teaching and all it's extra biblical teaching for salvation and if you aren't a Catholic you are bound to hell...
More than once I have have been told this by supposedly Christians...
I put my faith and salvation in Christ and Christ only and his Holy Word....I don't need Rome...
I sincerely hoped you had as it took so long to get back to you.
Almost all of our comments posted are referring to what was said in the post pinged to.
I apologize for offending you.
Chapter and verse?
Or are you left appealing to man-made tradition?
Why then should we ignore 2,000 years of accumulated insights from saints, theologians and scholars who are a lot more mature in Christ than we are?
Who suggested that?
The Ethiopian Eunuch knew this. When confronted with a mysterious passage from Isaiah (and there are many mysterious passages in Scripture) he made a common sense observation: he said he didn't understand it. Moreover, he followed this with a common sense deed: he asked the Church (in the person of Philip the Evangelist) for help in understanding it. And the Church gave it. That is what the Church does, for the Lord who breathed his Spirit into Scripture and the Lord who breathed his Spirit into the Church is one Lord (John 20:22; 2 Timothy 3:16).
He did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to give him understanding. And he did not go to the Catholic church.
The Holy Spirit sent Phillip to go and talk to him. Hardly asking Phillip to help him. Did you ever read the event and the conversation that they had?
You have told us that you are a former Catholic that has rejected the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Truth that Jesus commanded to the Catholic Church.
No, I rejected the Catholic church and the the false teachings that it claims are truth that are in contradiction to the plain, clear reading of Scripture.
We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth
No we can't. The only confidence we can have is in Scripture.
Any church that deviates from that is teaching error and error was creeping into the church from the get go. Paul's letters address it and Jesus addressed it in Revelation 2 & 3.
NO church is immune from error. That's why it's critically important to hold each and every teaching up to the truth standard found in Scripture.
So what? That does not affect the integrity of Scripture in the least.
Nor is ANYTHING free from misrepresentation or erroneous interpretation.
Not any of the Councils or pronouncements of Catholicism. Not the Catechism of the Catholic church. Not anything.
And everything anyone reads is subject to being misunderstood because everything anyone ever reads is by necessity personally interpreted.
Do you think that the lack of printing presses affected the salvation of those who could not peruse Scripture as we have the luxury of doing?
No doubt because faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Please thank the Catholic monks for their works in preserving the written Bible.
No. I will thank GOD for preserving His word and He doesn't need monks to do it, as the Dead Sea Scrolls attest.
Scripture testifies to Jesus by whom I have received eternal life.
Your comment: “Not ill feelings toward the Roman Catholic Church, just the adherents that claim you need Christ plus Roman Catholic Church teaching and all it’s extra biblical teaching for salvation and if you aren’t a Catholic you are bound to hell...”
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus and given the authority by Jesus (Matthew 16):
18k And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19l I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
I would suggest that all Christians that were interested in getting close to Jesus would want to be part of His Church.
Your comment: “if you aren’t a Catholic you are bound to hell...”
The Second Vatican Council speaks of salvation outside the Church in Lumen Gentium, nos. 14 and 16. Here are the pertinent sections from those two articles:
14. This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. [. . .]
16. [. . .] Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.
Translation:
I'm too lazy to do it again.
What rock?
Uh...
...you like a good give and take intellectually?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.