Eutychus' Church

[rkwright]

This thread is meant for actual debate, please stay on topic, avoid ALL name calling.

Out of all the threads that were started, very few had any substance to them. But Eutychus offered her (I think you're a she? ) idea of what Church should be. It follows...

[quote]Lest you think I'm a fan of Luther, Calvin, Knox, et al...forget it.

They were HERO's { even for the Catholic Church is you truly take the time to understand how corrupt the church was by 1500 and where that would have gone without the need to clean up a tad with the reformers gutting out entire nations } for what they DID accomplish. However, they too wanted state religions, just with another more honest church replacing the Catholic Church. All forgot, that the apostolic church had ZERO to NEGATIVE interaction with goverment, and the church grows fastest when it is actually under oppression BY government.

I believe in local churches, some will do well and prosper, others will fall into some forms of heresy and will wither out and die. However, many choices locally will instill opportunity to leave a bad church and go to a better one. State sponsored or universal churches with a one size fits all, means that when the church goes bad, it goes bad everywhere all at once.[/quote]

I pose the following questions
Who is to determine which local church has fallen into heresy? And when two local churches teach opposing views? Does this not lead to religion becoming nothing more than politics, with each church representing one set of beliefs?

How are we to understand St. Paul's writings if each local church is meant to be taken seperately? How can St. Paul's writings to the Romans be applicable to the Church in Cornith, the Ephesians, or even us today? When St. Paul speaks of being one body, surely he does not mean that each local church is one body for then we would have not one but many bodies. How are we to reconcile your idea of many local churches yet one body?

Is there any proof that Christ indeed wanted the Church to look the way you have stated? How about the early Christians?



In a similar discussion Aloysis offered some intelligent thoughts that went unasnwered
[quote]sheesh all this condescending is really unbecoming of someone who calls themself a Christian.

so anyway... ekklesia-- a church-- an assembly-- or as you insist a "calling out" (I generally just use the term 'assembly' because it's probably what the jewish writers understood it as because that's what the jewish religion had-- 'assemblies', " עדה" or "eydah", the sacred writers of the New Testament were coming from that language and culture, and picked out the word "ekklesia" from koine greek to convey the same meaning)

the Catholic Church defines "church" in many different ways; there is the Church as a whole referring to the worldwide (and in heaven) communion of all believers drawn together by its common belief in the essentials of Christianity by the apostolic teaching authority. then, there are 23 sui juris churches throughout the world which are all their own individual "churches". These all come together in unity (as the Father is one with the Son, so too do these Churches unite with one other Church which is equal to them, the Roman Church, to bring an essential unity) under one Church, but they are each properly called their own Church. Then there are individual dioceses, each properly known as a "church". Then there are individual parishes, each proplery known as a "church".

So you see, your proof-text in Revelation where Christ talks to the Seven Churches does not exclude our Church structure from being similar to the Church structure of the New Testament Church.

moreover, there are many proofs that the early Church saw itself as one church and only one church, spreading accross the world. A prayer from the Didache (written between AD 80 - AD 110):

"Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it"

sounds like one united worldwide thing they were talking about there, using the word "ekkelsia", or "assembly" [/quote]

[Eutychus]

Thank GOD, some serious questions that are worthy of time and effort to answer.

[quote] I pose the following questions

[u]Who is to determine which local church has fallen into heresy?[/u] And when two local churches teach opposing views? Does this not lead to religion becoming nothing more than politics, with each church representing one set of beliefs?[/quote]

First a tad of REAL HISTORY, to set the scene, will you grant me that grace and time?

One only has to look inside the New Testament itself to begin to see that in REALITY this is the NORM for humans, and nothing, no one, no system, and no authority can end this very real problem. Now we look into the situation while the apostles were STILL LIVING. Over and over, you see the writers, be it Paul, James, Jude { ESPECIALLY JUDE - I call his letter, the Epistle to the Apostates } John, both in his Gospel, and in two of his letters, and Revelation itself. Now keep this in mind, that there were living apostles, the churches were ALL founded directly by apostles or by those behind the apostles. Yet over and over, we see WARNINGS that FROM WITHIN { that is key here, within } serious errors were being introduced. Warnings against INSIDERS were actually more prominent and frequent than warnings about the pagans. So, if the church from DAY ONE, faced this problem, and Peter, Paul, James, Jude were unable to stop this, enforce pure doctrine, and stop the rot from WITHIN, why on earth do you assume that the worldwide churchES are going to be any better, different, or less prone to INSIDERS/CLERGY/THEOLOGIANS introducing heresies?

The Roman Catholic, is generally VERY NAIVE about the real state of "Uniformity" within his/her so called one true faith. I have been doing this for five years now, { it is sort of a hobby of mine to deal with Roman Catholic matters } and DAILY, I hit a checklist of sites, and blogs, maybe there are fifty on my list that I will hit over the course of a week. That being said, the squabbles between those CALLING THEMSELVES Roman Catholic, from the ubertrads to the notorious St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is so great that you would think you are dealing with two diametrically opposed religions. Sure, they will all WHIP OUT the CCC { or most will } then they will put it away, and DO what they want to, with positions that are miles apart. Or we look at nations, the Collyridian/Mariolotry of Latin America, to the Syncretic Pagan/Voodoo/Catholic synthesis of many of the Islands in the Carribean, AND in the African congregations.

So, we have established that this started from DAY ONE, and NO HUMAN GROUP has ever been effective at stopping apostacy { from within, by the leaders } and never will.

It is a good canard however, one that "IN THEORY" sounds great, but that is all it is, a PLATITUDE, a HYPOTHETICAL, a DREAM.

[quote]When St. Paul speaks of being one body, surely he does not mean that each local church is one body for then we would have not one but many bodies. How are we to reconcile your idea of many local churches yet one body?[/quote]

Go READ Revelation 1-2-3. Please.

How many CHURCH **ES** { note the plural } are listed? How many are told to look to CENTRAL AUTHORITY to resolve the ennumerated problems? If those churchES, all hypothecially under the current overisght of ST JOHN, are unable to do this, why do you assume that a bunch of old sexual ambivalents living like millionaires, are going to do a better job of standard setting than Paul, John, and Jesus themselves were able to achieve?

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057698' date='Sep 6 2006, 10:14 AM']Thank GOD, some serious questions that are worthy of time and effort to answer.[/quote]In all your complaining, did you actually give a [i]direct answer[/i] to the questions in your response?

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057698' date='Sep 6 2006, 10:14 AM']...a bunch of old sexual ambivalents ...[/quote]Also, are you still trying to malign Our Lord and His Gospel by suggesting that celibacy is abnormal? I find it odd to see a person who calls himself a Christian attacking celibacy, in light of Our Lord's own words (not to mention the clear message of St. Paul in his Epistles). Quoting the Gospel of St. Matthew ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm#v12"]link[/url]):[quote name='Matthew 19:12']"Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, beca[b]use they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven[/b]. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."[/quote]Not only was Our Lord unmarried and celibate; but He also taught that some would renounce marriage "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

It's really sad to see someone who is so focused on maligning others at all costs. I don't understand how you see yourself doing the will of God, when you mock and misrepresent Catholics. Your posts run so contrary to the Gospel's message of charity that we Christians are called to show towards others.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Also, are you still trying to malign Our Lord and His Gospel by [u]suggesting that celibacy is abnormal?[/u] [/quote]

Do you even know what the word ABNORMAL MEANS?

[quote]Main Entry: 1ab·nor·mal

Pronunciation: (")ab-'nor-m&l, &b-
Function: adjective
Etymology: alteration of French anormal, from Medieval Latin anormalis, from Latin a- + Late Latin normalis normal

: deviating from the normal or average :[/quote]

By DEFINITION, people that take a vow to BE DIFFERENT are by definition, ABNORMAL.

Sometimes dealing with you folks really IS LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

{ where did those TWO GREAT threads go anyway, were they burned at the stake for being too close to reality?}

[CatholicCid]

This is going to be a fun thread

+gets popcorn+

(Ironically, this posts adds the same amount to the thread as Eutychus' did)

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057721' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:00 AM']
Do you even know what the word ABNORMAL MEANS?
By DEFINITION, people that take a vow to BE DIFFERENT are by definition, ABNORMAL.

Sometimes dealing with you folks really IS LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

{ where did those TWO GREAT threads go anyway, were they burned at the stake for being too close to reality?}
[/quote]


So by this logic someone in any Islam nation where Islam is say 99% of population, the 1% of Christian people would by definition, be different, and by your defintion, Abnormal.

Those's awful threads where deleted because of my rudeness you know this, Sir. I thought you would have been happy, you where displease because the did exist now you are displease because they dont? Oh my goodness

[Eutychus]

[quote]So by this logic someone in any Islam nation where Islam is say 99% of population, the 1% of Christian people would by definition, be different, and by your defintion, Abnormal. [/quote]

Yes - if the question was "What does the normal citizen of XXXX believe in?"

I keep forgetting to bring and wear my Vaticaneses Decoder Ring, that translates colloquial English into that special language where [b][u]"white becomes black" [/u][/b]if the prelates declare it so. { to quote Loyola founder of the Jesuits }

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057738' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:39 AM']
Yes - if the question was "What does the normal citizen of XXXX believe in?"

I keep forgetting to bring and wear my Vaticaneses Decoder Ring, that translates colloquial English into that special language where [b][u]"white becomes black" [/u][/b]if the prelates declare it so. { to quote Loyola founder of the Jesuits }
[/quote]


So Christians in Iran are abnormal, ok.

Nice strawman argument to end this flawed logic.

[kujo]

I think that debating semantics (in this thread and other threads) just impedes this whole interfaith-effort. It's obvious that we are not going to agree on almost anything, so why go in here looking to pick a fight?

I renew the call from the beginning of the thread: please, let's not do the name-calling and condescension. It just puts people on the defensive and makes it more difficult to have an honest debate.

[KnightofChrist]

Let me point out I am not name calling when I use the terms "strawman", or "abnormal" I am using Eutychus own argument agaisnt him. I am trying my best to repent of my sins of yesterday and be a good Christian, yet still point out flaws in my opponents logic.

[Mary-Kathryn]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057721' date='Sep 6 2006, 11:00 AM']
Do you even know what the word ABNORMAL MEANS?
By DEFINITION, people that take a vow to BE DIFFERENT are by definition, ABNORMAL.

Sometimes dealing with you folks really IS LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND.

{ where did those TWO GREAT threads go anyway, were they burned at the stake for being too close to reality?}
[/quote]

So what is your church like? As a convert of 17 years I understand what it is to be raised in a belief that is opposed to others...especially the Catholic faith. It's funny, I think folks tend to shove at each other, never getting anywhere, instead of just talking. Maybe we feel others may come at us first so we're all defensive, I don't know. You believe as you do, and I in turn love my faith and being Catholic. I would really like to know about your church and what you feel a church should be.

I won't say anything nasty about your reply. That's not my way, and I'm just too old for it. Besides, as a convert, I think I owe it to God and to you, to show you more respect than that.

Mary-Kathryn

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057721' date='Sep 6 2006, 11:00 AM']
Do you even know what the word ABNORMAL MEANS?
By DEFINITION, people that take a vow to BE DIFFERENT are by definition, ABNORMAL.

Sometimes dealing with you folks really IS LIKE ALICE IN WONDERLAND.[/quote]At the risk of repeating what others have already said, the term "abnormal" is relative to a certain standard. Using the standard of the Gospel and within the context of Christianity, celibacy is normal. "Normal" is defined as "conforming to the standard" ([url="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=normal&x=0&y=0"]link[/url]). According to the world, celibacy is abnormal.

Arguing semantics seems to be yet another tactic you use to avoid the real issue: the "Gospel of Eutychus" and the Christian Gospel are at odds with one another.

As Our Lord says, "Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

[rkwright]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057698' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:14 AM']
Thank GOD, some serious questions that are worthy of time and effort to answer.
First a tad of REAL HISTORY, to set the scene, will you grant me that grace and time?

One only has to look inside the New Testament itself to begin to see that in REALITY this is the NORM for humans, and nothing, no one, no system, and no authority can end this very real problem. Now we look into the situation while the apostles were STILL LIVING. Over and over, you see the writers, be it Paul, James, Jude { ESPECIALLY JUDE - I call his letter, the Epistle to the Apostates } John, both in his Gospel, and in two of his letters, and Revelation itself. Now keep this in mind, that there were living apostles, the churches were ALL founded directly by apostles or by those behind the apostles. Yet over and over, we see WARNINGS that FROM WITHIN { that is key here, within } serious errors were being introduced. Warnings against INSIDERS were actually more prominent and frequent than warnings about the pagans. So, if the church from DAY ONE, faced this problem, and Peter, Paul, James, Jude were unable to stop this, enforce pure doctrine, and stop the rot from WITHIN, why on earth do you assume that the worldwide churchES are going to be any better, different, or less prone to INSIDERS/CLERGY/THEOLOGIANS introducing heresies?

The Roman Catholic, is generally VERY NAIVE about the real state of "Uniformity" within his/her so called one true faith. I have been doing this for five years now, { it is sort of a hobby of mine to deal with Roman Catholic matters } and DAILY, I hit a checklist of sites, and blogs, maybe there are fifty on my list that I will hit over the course of a week. That being said, the squabbles between those CALLING THEMSELVES Roman Catholic, from the ubertrads to the notorious St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is so great that you would think you are dealing with two diametrically opposed religions. Sure, they will all WHIP OUT the CCC { or most will } then they will put it away, and DO what they want to, with positions that are miles apart. Or we look at nations, the Collyridian/Mariolotry of Latin America, to the Syncretic Pagan/Voodoo/Catholic synthesis of many of the Islands in the Carribean, AND in the African congregations.

So, we have established that this started from DAY ONE, and NO HUMAN GROUP has ever been effective at stopping apostacy { from within, by the leaders } and never will.

It is a good canard however, one that "IN THEORY" sounds great, but that is all it is, a PLATITUDE, a HYPOTHETICAL, a DREAM.
Go READ Revelation 1-2-3. Please.

How many CHURCH **ES** { note the plural } are listed? How many are told to look to CENTRAL AUTHORITY to resolve the ennumerated problems? If those churchES, all hypothecially under the current overisght of ST JOHN, are unable to do this, why do you assume that a bunch of old sexual ambivalents living like millionaires, are going to do a better job of standard setting than Paul, John, and Jesus themselves were able to achieve?
[/quote]

E - A few remarks... lets stay on topic please. There is no point to be debating the meaning of the word abnormal here, if you want to start a thread on celebacy go ahead. But my intent was for this thread to discuss what you view and what Catholics veiw by the term 'Church'

You have rightly asserted that heresies orginate from within, and always have. There is no debate from me on this point. It is obvious from the writings of St. Paul that there were divisions during the time of the early Church. The Church Fathers confirm this.

Forgive me for any strawman, but when I asked the questions of basic authority, who should resolve the conflicts that come up, you have told us that no one could do it then, and no one can do it now. Whether or not this is true isn't really an issue; There may actually be a bigger issue at hand...

In your opinion is Truth only relative, based on each local Church?

You wrote [quote]So, we have established that this started from DAY ONE, and NO HUMAN GROUP has ever been effective at stopping apostacy { from within, by the leaders } and never will.[/quote]

Who is to decide what apostacy is?

Even if I grant you that 'no human group has ever been effective at stopping apostacy' (which I don't fully) how does this actually change the teachings of the Church? Why does it even matter if the implementation has not always been effective? Poor execution does not equate poor teachings.

[Eutychus]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1057763' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:21 AM']


[u]Who is to decide what apostacy is? [/u]


[/quote]

I would submit that this be the FINAL TEST.

[img]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/bible.gif[/img]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1057787' date='Sep 6 2006, 10:58 AM']
I would submit that this be the FINAL TEST.

[img]http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/bible.gif[/img]
[/quote]


Who's interpretation of The Holy Bible do we take? Yours? If so why yours if you a sinner, could be wrong. And if you can be wrong, can the church be right?


ps cool pic of The Holy Bible!