I believe there is no universal Church.
I think you need to qualify that, because further in this very post, you state otherwise. Attempting to follow your line of thought has proven to be difficult, because you state this, and then speak of a local v universal church elsewhere!
I believe that in relation to Christianity, there are universal denominations.
Again, maybe you may want to think this through some more. Universal denominations? It is a contradictory idea. A universal ideal opposes the ideal of self-determinate denominations.
Either there is one Church, one faith, one baptism, or there is many churches, many faiths, many means of entering the Kingdom - and many ideas of Who God is... Certainly, there are local communities - and no doubt, they have a diverse variety of devotionals and prayer life. Cultural methods of praising God. But they all possess the same creed, enter the Church through the same sacrament, and consider themselves part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic community.
THIS is self-evident when the same man, Paul, writes to a variety of different communities - and these letters are quite interchangeable. Letters by Paul to the Corinthians could just as easily been written to the Galatians (minus some personal aspects). Or they could have been written to the communities in the 21st century. IF the Church was not universal in the more literal sense (rather than just metaphysicals such as "the Body of Christ), then the varies locals would not accept letters written by a different "denominational apostle"
And I’m sorry, but I include the RCC in that belief. I believe that the ekklesia, as described in the Bible, each of which is local in nature being associated only with cities, are each intended to be an expression of that which is universal, described in various ways in the Bible. Such as the Body of Christ, the Temple as the residence of God, and the Kingdom of the Son as the authority of Christ. Even the New Jerusalem that is currently in heaven.
They are indeed. And it follows that these local expressions point to something in
reality, which you deny! The very fact that authority is held equally by Paul in all Christian communities expresses a very VISIBLE universal authority. This visible authority continues.
It must also be understood that I believe the ekklesia continues to exist without expression today. That in every city wherein resides those who are in Christ, there is an ekklesia.
The Body of Christ exists in visible form. For example, when Jesus told the Apostles in Matt 18 to "take it to the Church", Jesus clearly had in mind a visible and known commodity of authority that was accepted by all Christians. HOW can a disagreement be successfully resolved if no one accepts the "take it to the Church" authority? The "invisible Church" ideal is only part of the reality, a partial truth. The bible clearly points to a VISIBLE Church, as well. This visible Church is also catholic - meaning, universal.
“You clearly don't know me, nor do you know what the Catholic Church teaches.â€
I really made you mad didn’t I? I really do apologize. You previously said I knew more than most about Catholic teaching. I guess you take that back now.
I am not mad, but the generalizations are unfair. ALL Catholics do not follow your cliche.
“But of course, you won't answer because of MY stubborness??? â€
I haven’t answered before now because I didn’t have the time before now. And I wasn’t going to answer at all because you intimated that the conversation was over. I didn’t know any other meaning for “this is my last postâ€. I may be guilty of what I apologized for. But I can’t take the blame here.
You are misunderstanding this comment. Your "won't answer" is not about cutting off conversation, but your desire not to "speak to a Catholic because I already know the answer - they all do "x"..."
The "X" above revolves around the apparent and suppposed stubborness of
all Catholics (because we all are brainwashed and can't think for themselves) where common and decent conversation are apparently not possible. Call it "poisoning the well", call it "ad hominem", call it "false generalizations", call it "saving face". whatever. That was what my comment was based upon. Not anger. More sarcasm than anger. You have to say a lot more than that here. This forum has taught me to develop thick skin.
“Yep. Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed the serpent, and FC blames the Catholic...â€
I haven’t blamed you for anything that I recall.
See my last comment and it might sink in...
But then, I never take the time to peruse what I said in the past. If I did, again I apologize. I posted the original post expecting a reaction. But not this kind of reaction. That I didn’t expect. And that is a sign of stupidity on my part, because I should have expected it. Catholics who are apologists for their faith are usually like Protestant Fundamentalists. And you certainly are showing that trait now.
If you mean "apologists are zealous", fair enough. But it doesn't mean that I cannot accept criticism or be shown a point of view that might make better sense or one that explains one's view. Usually, though, I am confronted with "because I said so" from the little "popettes" out there.
“First, you must realize that the Church is a human and divine organization. It lives here on earth among society. You cannot escape that fact. We can make analogies with secular organizations because they BOTH consist of human members!!!â€
I would agree if only the human was in view. But I have to disagree with that because of the Divine aspect of “the Churchâ€.
Step back for a second...
How do we know about God? By Jesus, correct? Now, Jesus is in the flesh, correct? According to your logic, we cannot know about God through human means because of the divine aspect of Christ? Jesus, in the flesh, enables us to use analogy to "see" God. In the same manner, although the Church is divine and human, we can use human analogy in SOME cases to discuss aspects of the Church, since the Church is made up of human members. Remember, Jesus is God and man, so the fact that the Church is Divine does not prevent us from using human metaphors or analogies to come to SOME understanding of the Church.
“The point of my suggestion was to help you reflect on why the Church would consider closed communion. I don't see the reason as so different. It was an attempt to think without the bias usually attached by you to thinking about ANYTHING associated with the "C" word... It appears that all rational thought shuts down over there when someone brings out the "C" word. So I had hoped to enable you to think through an example that would not raise such a big stink with you.â€
Generally, when Catholics use the word catholic and the word Church, they are referring to their own Church. You have clearly pointed out that is a misconception in regard to you on this forum. You are referring to something that goes beyond the RCC. A universal Church that includes Protestants. Am I right?
Yes. That is why I rarely use the term "RCC". "Roman" is only one group of Catholics, and as such cannot be the Universal Church in its entirety. There is only one Church, which subsists in the Catholic Church. Other individuals are part of this Church via their baptism (when validly performed). They are not attached to another Church of Christ, since there is only one universal (catholic) Church. Many of my separated brothers maintain their original catholic beliefs - even reciting the Creed stating their beliefs in unision with ours. Ecclesiastically, we are separated, true. but in many things, we are not.
“But given how our conversations have gone, with your constant accusations of MY stubborness (that usually is the claim from the self-proclaimed relativist who is challenged), it is not surprising that you respond as such.â€
Now wait just a minute. We’ve had a handful of conversations. And they’ve all been friendly up to now. And that’s what fooled me. I had no idea you were this humorless or this serious. I will take the blame for this one incident. Since you perceive it as my fault. But you really need to chill out.
Hopefully, my explanation above will iron this out, as well.
I am not being "unfriendly", but we cannot have friendly conversation while your false generalizations/poisoning the well - whatever - remain unanswered. I am hopeful that you won't need to be reminded of that again.
Yeah, I can buy that. A person conforming himself to an organization that he believes is the “true Churchâ€, might well consider himself to be conforming himself to Jesus Christ whom he considers the head of that Church. I would sooner understand that of you as a RC, than a Protestant like Jasoncran who claims the Bible is his only authority.
Trust me, personally, I am a non-conformist. Becoming a Catholic is not "natural" for my personality. But if a person gets to that acceptance of what the Catholic Church is and what it claims to be, the rest follows, with the grace of God.
If I might suggest. You seem to have a deep seated prejudice against Protestants, or maybe a certain kind of Protestant, that has revealed itself in these posts. If you’re believing in your Church alone you need to turn to Jesus Christ. But you appear to believe in both Jesus Christ and your Church. I really haven’t a quarrel with that since we have common ground in Jesus Christ.
If I had something against Protestants, why would I speak in public and say that we are part of the same Catholic Church??? Don't you find your conclusion odd?
I’m not a Protestant, I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, I don’t believe in Sola Fides.
Sure you are, just not of any of the so-called 'classical reformers'.
My faith in Jesus is individual, which is the only way it can be for anyone.
That is only partially true.
I put no faith in Christian organizations, including the RCC.
My faith is not IN the "RCC", but in the Spirit that upholds it. If it wasn't for the Spirit of God, I couldn't remain in the "RCC" while hearing about priests abusing teenage boys or other such items. The "field" has wheat and tares...
I don’t rely on my fallen ability, I rely on walking by the Spirit.If you can only see your Church as the source of objectivity, then you aren’t going to understand why I believe what I believe is not due to personal subjectivity.
The "RCC" is not the "source of objectivity", God is. He has promised to speak THROUGH the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" - Jesus made that clear.
You rely on your fallen ability to filter out what is true doctrine and what is not. This is the exact reason Jesus left us a church - to spread the Good News, not to hand us a bible and "figure it out between you and the Spirit of God". It is perfectly clear where denominations come from - the attitude that one's subjective personality has the answers.
Regards
