God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order

[DrBubbaLove]

You choose to post a provocative polemic that made the Catholic church out to be the one true church, and which thus invited refutation. And there is nothing wrong with saving typing by using links or posting from one's own material, which I (Daniel1212) did.

Why not just say you cannot tolerate such refutation of your "one true church?"

Actually my posted reply to another person (God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order is where Daniel1212 inserts himself with a spew of anti-Catholic rhetoric) was against the idea that the other poster seemed to be presenting that God failed when He started the Church even as early as the 1st century, and so needed people to periodically come along and revive it.

My post never mentioned the RCC or my opinion that it does represent the One Bread and One Body. That you would obviously associate my faith declaration under my photo of Curly with that opinion and so feel obligated to spew hatred all over the thread without really addressing that point does not help your case. My point was God does not do things half-xxx and therefore needing our help to keep His Work on course. He works through us, certainly. But His own Words indicates He would give His Church help to stay the course. Your evangelical, fine. I even allowed in that same post you felt obliged to spew all over that Protestants do indeed appeal to being "that Church" which Jesus founded, but the manner which they do so was no longer satisfying to me.

Am actually willing to tolerate disagreement on where that Church went and whose teachings can best be found today without feeling the need to spew hateful rhetoric at anyone disagreeing with my opinion. Wish more Christians felt the same.

 

[Philip_B]

It concerns me a little that some of the assault on the RCC position on the Eucharist is mounted on the basis of presumed meaning and intent. Little - if any - mention is made of contemporary expressions from that communion of faith.

Pope Francis - Laudate Si - May 2015 at 236.

It is in the Eucharist that all that has been created finds its greatest exaltation. Grace, which tends to manifest itself tangibly, found unsurpassable expression when God himself became man and gave himself as food for his creatures. The Lord, in the culmination of the mystery of the Incarnation, chose to reach our intimate depths through a fragment of matter. He comes not from above, but from within, he comes that we might find him in this world of ours. In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living centre of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. The world which came forth from God’s hands returns to him in blessed and undivided adoration: in the bread of the Eucharist, “creation is projected towards divinization, towards the holy wedding feast, towards unification with the Creator himself”. Thus, the Eucharist is also a source of light and motivation for our concerns for the environment, directing us to be stewards of all creation.​

It is easy to search for the things on which we might not be 100% in agreement and tear things down, however it may be more constructive to find the things we have in common and build those up. The Post Vatican II Roman Catholic Church is not the Roman Catholic Church of the 4th Lateran Council, nor is it the Fake Catholic Church that opponents make up in their own mind to destroy.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I also have stiff arthritic figures, and use an iPad. And yet I am composing everything for each individual member.

As I do, but often times link to more, and sometimes use something or reiterate something i said before, which would be little or no different than if i typed it anew, thus your objection is spurious. [/QUOTE]

No; I have complained about the posting style of Catholic members. Please do not refer to traditional Christians as "Caths" by the way; it is demeaning. I make a point of objecting when people call Protestants "Prots," by the way.

I use Caths and Prots as shorthand and usually the lower case "i" for myself, with nothing demeaning intended for any of them, but to save myself from more typos (in about 40% of what i type) due to my fingers. And in a forum which often sees contentious debate is not place for being easily offended.

Are you of the opinion that Jesus Christ is inferior to the Bible? This is a simple yes or no question.

Of course not - living by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God does not make Christ the Word inferior to it, and since Scripture is His word then in one sense Christ can be said to be the Bible, yet according to you no one is fed by hearing it, despite that Scripture likens His word to food, even being contextually described as "milk" and "meat by believing which souls become believers and are "built up." and nourished by it.

the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. (Psalms 19:9b,10)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. (1 Corinthians 3:1-2)

For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:12-14)

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17)

Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O Lord God of hosts. (Jeremiah 15:16)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

Yet you must compel all such texts to refer to the Eucharist as the only way believers are spiritually fed.

No really, its in my Bible.

Yes, really such accounts in your Bible really means silence from Heaven.

My Church is infallible. However we have no "authoritative magisterial office." We are not Roman Catholic.

Rather, your church infallibly declares that it is infallible, and repeating such novel (in Scripture) fantasy does not make any more true for you than for Rome, which "infallibly" contradicts your "infallible church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Soviet Union and the Eastern Block and Communist lands were reckoned "the Second World." The term "third world" referred to the usually impoverished neutral countries, for example, the Non-Aligned movement, but technically also includes Finland and Austria.

You miss the analogy. The US in the cold war did not spend much of its resources fighting 3rd world countries, but focused on the largest belligerent enemy. Likewise we focus far more on catholicism, especially the Roman version, than liberal Pro churches, which tend to be closest to catholicism anyway.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Nope. My view is clearly set forth in the works of Metropolitan Kallistos Ware. Which you should obtain if for no other reason than to aid your polemics that address the Orthodox.

That Ware says "the Eucharist of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic churhc is imp,icit in every book in the NT" does not make it true, nor does what Mormonic apologists see. Again, this distinctive Lord's supper simply is not seen in life of the church, and Scripture is not to be abused in service to any church.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So John 1:1-14 saying Jesus Christ is God, is "spin"?

How is this not insolence? The issue obviously was not that John 1:1-14 says Jesus Christ is God, but what you wrest from this, that "the only way to feed the flock with the Word therefore is via the Eucharist."

In-credible!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I am not Roman Catholic.

The shoe largely fits regardless.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Not meaning to burst anyone's bubble, but let's not rewrite history when it makes us uncomfortable.
The Church was practically the soul voice of Christianity against abortion in the 60s. Note several of these links, like the first, are leading evangelical sources.

"Prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973, evangelicals were, with a few notable exceptions, confused and uncertain about the question of abortion.
by R. Albert Mohler
Were America’s evangelical Christians always stalwartly pro-life and opposed to abortion? Sadly, we were not, and the story behind that delay should be on our minds as we ponder the dark anniversary of Roe v. Wade. To our shame, when Roe came evangelicals were part of the problem."
"This fact would be shocking to many Americans today, who naturally associate evangelical Christians with the pro-life cause. But, prior to Roe v. Wade in 1973, evangelicals were, with a few notable exceptions, confused and uncertain about the question of abortion."
"The November 8, 1968 edition of Christianity Today,....
“A Protestant Affirmation” that stated: “Whether or not the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity of it and permissibility for it under certain circumstances we are in accord.”


Birthright

"In the late nineteen-seventies, the Republican strategists Richard Viguerie and Paul Weyrich, both of whom were Catholic, recruited Jerry Falwell into a coalition designed to bring together economic and social conservatives around a “pro-family” agenda, one that targeted gay rights, sexual freedom, women’s liberation, the E.R.A., child care, and sex education. ...
"Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979; Paul Brown, the founder of the American Life League, scoffed in 1982, “Jerry Falwell couldn’t spell ‘abortion’ five years ago.”

"Evangelical hard-line views on abortion are not a matter of an unbroken tradition. In 1971, before Roe v. Wade, when nearly all states maintained abortion bans, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution calling for abortion laws that would recognize exceptions not only in cases of rape and incest, but where the “emotional, mental and physical health of the mother” might be endangered. Needless to say, that would be considered a radically liberal position among evangelicals today. "
Read more at Evangelicals and Abortion - Progressive Revival

https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2013...ow-abortion-became-an-evangelical-issue/11238

Which means what? That as the movement matured and examined social sins, and realized the conceived was truly human, then it become more conservative, and it seem to be trending that way with contraception, which is another thing they tragically missed the boat on (though in reality there is little statistical difference btwn them and Caths on contraceptive use). Women preachers should be next, if indeed it will continued to esteem Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired authorative word of God, which is what liberal churches are soft on, and the majority of Catholic scholarship militates against (as seen even for decades in many of the notes and study helps of the approved NAB).

In contrast, while evangelicals were becoming more conservative, Catholics were becoming more liberal, and under their model in which the one basic duty of the sheep is to follow their pastors as docile sheep, then they can expected to continue to drift South.

Thus what this shows is that under Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired word of God the people can be expected to be morally conservative, and correct errors of immaturity, insofar as they are committed to following unchanging Scripture while when leadership is held as supreme, then when it goes South, so their followers.

Both are needed, but only one source is wholly inspired and unconditionally infallible in all its teachings.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Just trying to understand why someone attempting to respond to in a discussion on one issue would feel the need to cut and paste general rants about the RCC and "liberal Protestants" in a sort of spew all over the table sort of style of debate.
Am rather use to the Church being the target of such hatred but it rather clutters the thread to tolerate someone doing this abusively. It also suggests there is not much such posters can bring to the discussion other than a rather single minded bulk spew of hatred. Sort of like the protestor with loudest mega phones wins I guess. Fine, your hatred wins I guess.

Sound like liberal self-righteous "such hatred" censure which is used in lieu of a real argument: are you not defending a church which uniquely claims to be the one true church, and which holds that Prot church are not even worthy of the proper title "church?"

Do you not hold that your church must be right in any conflict over the veracity of its dogma?

Was not your church implicitly the one you were alluding to or working to validate in your description of how God "sets up a Church to deliver His News to all of mankind. Gives the leadership of that Church a body of teachings along with Authority to guide that Church in teachings?"

If so, then how can you portray yourself as the victim of "hate" when your provocative position and polemics are challenged, exposed, refuted and and rebuked by the grace of God?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Actually my posted reply to another person (God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order is where Daniel1212 inserts himself with a spew of anti-Catholic rhetoric) was against the idea that the other poster seemed to be presenting that God failed when He started the Church even as early as the 1st century, and so needed people to periodically come along and revive it.

My post never mentioned the RCC or my opinion that it does represent the One Bread and One Body.

And so again, the church you described was not the Catholic church? If not, which one was it?

That you would obviously associate my faith declaration under my photo of Curly with that opinion and so feel obligated to spew hatred all over the thread without really addressing that point does not help your case. My point was God does not do things half-xxx and therefore needing our help to keep His Work on course. He works through us, certainly. But His own Words indicates He would give His Church help to stay the course. Your evangelical, fine. I even allowed in that same post you felt obliged to spew all over that Protestants do indeed appeal to being "that Church" which Jesus founded, but the manner which they do so was no longer satisfying to me.

Am actually willing to tolerate disagreement on where that Church went and whose teachings can best be found today without feeling the need to spew hateful rhetoric at anyone disagreeing with my opinion. Wish more Christians felt the same.

As this is more of the same censure by one who defends a church that exalts itself as the one true church, to whom all are to submit, and which does not even consider Prot churches worthy to be called "churches" (Domine Jesus) and who is offended when this fallacious premise is challenged and exposed for what it is, by God's grace.

It is such a church, and by extension, those who promote and defend her, that implicitly attacks and or condemns those who are not part of it, and correct her. How then is not your advocacy of her not an provocative attack on those without her?

A forum is just that, and may get contentious and yet I have little doubt the one charging me with hatred because i post out of love for truth (and would gladly wash and waxed your car, and take out your trash, etc, by God's grace) would like to see me removed from this forum, yet this is not the times of the Inquisition when nothing that impugns your church could be allowed, and Catholic rulers were commanded to exterminate the heretics.

And spewing "hateful" charges of spewing "hateful" charges is mainly a liberal tactic.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Which means what? That as the movement matured and examined social sins, and realized the conceived was truly human, then it become more conservative, and it seem to be trending that way with contraception, which is another thing they tragically missed the boat on (though in reality there is little statistical difference btwn them and Caths on contraceptive use). Women preachers should be next, if indeed it will continued to esteem Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired authorative word of God, which is what liberal churches are soft on, and the majority of Catholic scholarship militates against (as seen even for decades in many of the notes and study helps of the approved NAB).

In contrast, while evangelicals were becoming more conservative, Catholics were becoming more liberal, and under their model in which the one basic duty of the sheep is to follow their pastors as docile sheep, then they can expected to continue to drift South.

Thus what this shows is that under Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired word of God the people can be expected to be morally conservative, and correct errors of immaturity, insofar as they are committed to following unchanging Scripture while when leadership is held as supreme, then when it goes South, so their followers.

Both are needed, but only one source is wholly inspired and unconditionally infallible in all its teachings.

What it means and why I posted all that; was to refute the notion that was made just a couple post pior; that there was a consistent and unified position with evangelicals and also to counter the suggestion made against my saying the Catholic Church was pretty much alone in standing against abortion until after Roe v Wade (death penalty BTW also). We were pretty much alone and evangelicals were not just not on board against it, they were arguing against the Catholic position on it and even running hospitals where it was allowed in some circumstances, circumstances they would not tolerate now (thankfully).

I agree many Christian faiths seem to have adopted a lot of the liberal teachings of modern society/culture, Catholic members included. I do not agree all Churches have modified positions long held to adopt those liberal teachings. In fact many Churches, just like the RCC, still stand very firmly against liberalism/progressive-ism/modernism and socialism (whatever they want it to be called) even where large groups of members within those Churches may have one foot out the door in that regard.

I do wish more Bishops would be more like Bishop Sheen was (youtube him on socialism - a good one), especially since most Catholics now lack the education their parents once had and do not even have an understanding of, much less an appreciation for what the Church actually teaches. We have large groups of Catholics that seem to think the Church is OK with them believing whatever they want to believe and that is just wrong. However in my experience that is not a uniquely Catholic issue and is not a case of a Church changing teaches or positions, at least not in the case of the RCC.

The RCC teachings have not changed. I do agree dissension by some Catholics has been too long tolerated and perhaps aided by some admittedly rather liberal leadership within the Church at the local levels.

IMO a big part of all this liberal shift we see everywhere is the direct result of the people that began taking over all our education systems well over 50 years ago. Done intentionally to clone their beliefs and it has worked rather well - witness the many Americans now wanting to adopt socialism full scale when that would have been unthinkable in my childhood. That liberal shift occurred at higher level learning institutions too where many of our Priests come from. So it should come as no surprise that some, not all, of our leaders are very left leaning. None of this so far has resulted in a change of teachings in faith and morals. Some practices and customs have been altered, and not positively in the view of many.

BTW I would not consider our Pope one of those liberals, even though the media insists he is. Can't believe most of what the media says anymore - bad as most politicians.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Sound like liberal self-righteous "such hatred" censure which is used in lieu of a real argument: are you not defending a church which uniquely claims to be the one true church, and which holds that Prot church are not even worthy of the proper title "church?"

Do you not hold that your church must be right in any conflict over the veracity of its dogma?

Was not your church implicitly the one you were alluding to or working to validate in your description of how God "sets up a Church to deliver His News to all of mankind. Gives the leadership of that Church a body of teachings along with Authority to guide that Church in teachings?"

If so, then how can you portray yourself as the victim of "hate" when your provocative position and polemics are challenged, exposed, refuted and and rebuked by the grace of God?

Am going to try to keep ignoring all the foul hatred and get to the only thing said relevant to this thread and what started our exchange.
No, my Church was not the subject of the discussion I was having with another poster before it was rudely and rather nastily interrupted.
Having been a Protestant most of my life, my assumption would be like me, people would want to believe the Church they belong to adheres to teaching ALL of what God Himself came down to reveal to men to establish that Church (as in body of believers) through His Apostles (a body of teachings).
So the discussion with the other poster was along those line, with him having said God still needed humans to come along after Him to periodically "revive" the Church and clean up the human corruption that he claimed would enviably always enter into and corrupt what was being taught.
Many Protestants, especially evangelicals (Baptist being most familiar to me) would reject many things from Christian history, including a few that are traceable to the first century. My remarks in that post to another person reflect that observation. So his claim about corruption would have to be it starts to enter shortly after Jesus floated off in the clouds.
So regardless what Church one claims now, I was stating IMO that there are only a couple of reasonable views of Christian history to appeal to, to be able to say the Church one belongs to best represents what God intended us to know as Christians. And I would think it true that most Christians would feel that way about their Church. Otherwise they would seek out some place where they did feel that way (as I did and RCC was only my final stop). A wise old Benedictine nun told me (a class) that she would rather we be good Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans, even Presbyterian..... than to join the Church and be poor Catholics.

I realize there are a boatload of evangelicals that believe all they need is their faith and a Bible (and maybe not even needing each others help really). The Apostles built a rapidly growing Church into much of the world with only a Jewish OT. They did it helping each other, (as we need each other to help strengthen our faith). They built a hierarchy within the Church both to help them manage/administrate Church functions but also to help each other and new members grow in their faith. They did that while passing down teachings they got from Jesus that are recorded no where in our Bibles today except they mention they were passing those down. Passing down teachings that our Bible says all the books written could not contain - (that's a lot BTW). They did all this under the guidance of the Comforter that Jesus promised He would send to them for their guidance in their efforts to do what He told them to do - lead His sheep - the Body of believers. What He started He also said would always prevail.

So my point was, again regardless what Church one belongs to now, to look at that effort and organization God led them to create and imagine it all starting to fall apart shortly after He left them such that He would need men to come along later to sweep out the trash periodically with a "revival" is a rather dim view of that history. Also a dim view of God's ability to ordain order in things He does and have it keep that order with the Spirit's help. Maybe I was not clear on this point, but I do not think most Protestants look at "revival" as being a house cleaning of wrong teachings or beliefs, which appeared to be the other posters position that I was responding to.

How most Protestant's answer that question about where did that Church go and in what sense does the Church one belongs to resemble it varies, but my point was most Protestants do attempt to answer such questions and obviously do so without agreeing the RCC today is that Church or that "revivals" are what sustains the correct teachings and beliefs.

So no, that my belief the RCC is that Church was not the point of my post. Not that this matters though, as am sure there is more hateful anti-Catholic rhetoric to cut and paste a reply to this post.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

What it means and why I posted all that; was to refute the notion that was made just a couple post pior; that there was a consistent and unified position with evangelicals and also to counter the suggestion made against my saying the Catholic Church was pretty much alone in standing against abortion until after Roe v Wade (death penalty BTW also). We were pretty much alone and evangelicals were not just not on board against it, they were arguing against the Catholic position on it and even running hospitals where it was allowed in some circumstances, circumstances they would not tolerate now (thankfully).

The modern evangelical movement, as in fundamentalism, rose up in opposition to theological liberalism which attacked such "fundamentals , as the integrity (and thus its authority) of Scripture, with its literal historical accounts (verses such things as Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) being a fables or folk tales, and holding to the liberal JEDP theory, all of which are seen in RC scholarship), and the virgin birth of Christ, and His substitutionary atonement on the cross, and bodily resurrection and physical return.

Fundamental evangelicalism arose due to common assent and commitment to these core Truths, and as liberalism also substituted the evangelical gospel of conversion with a social gospel (much seen in Latin America Catholicism at the time), then in an overreaction fundamental evangelicalism shunned involvement in social issues in its beginnings, whereas now it is enemy #1 of liberals.

I agree many Christian faiths seem to have adopted a lot of the liberal teachings of modern society/culture, Catholic members included. I do not agree all Churches have modified positions long held to adopt those liberal teachings. In fact many Churches, just like the RCC, still stand very firmly against liberalism/progressive-ism/modernism and socialism (whatever they want it to be called) even where large groups of members within those Churches may have one foot out the door in that regard.

How can you say that your church stands very firmly against liberalism/progressive-ism/modernism and socialism? Sure, you can point to some historical teaching, but which is interpreted by modern teaching in word and deed which effectually fosters liberalism. If this was not true then you would not have the conservative sects in in RCC as the SSPX, and its sympathizers.

Besides entrenched liberal Bible scholarship, now you have a pope whose latest verbose encyclical sounds much like a NYT editorial, and who is regularly protested by conservative RCs, while Biblically the judgment of what one truly believes is based on what they do and effect, not mere declarations, and for decades Rome has treated even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death.

I do wish more Bishops would be more like Bishop Sheen was (youtube him on socialism - a good one), especially since most Catholics now lack the education their parents once had and do not even have an understanding of, much less an appreciation for what the Church actually teaches. We have large groups of Catholics that seem to think the Church is OK with them believing whatever they want to believe and that is just wrong.

But that is just your judgment, while Rome manifests its understanding of canon law (etc.) by its overall treatment of such.

However in my experience that is not a uniquely Catholic issue and is not a case of a Church changing teaches or positions, at least not in the case of the RCC.

No, but as Scripture commands believers not to have fellowship with such, but to separate from them, (2Co. 6:14-18) then besides doctrinal issues, you cannot expect those in conservative evangelical churches to leave their own and become part of a church which includes even Teddy Kennedy type Caths as members.

The RCC teachings have not changed. I do agree dissension by some Catholics has been too long tolerated and perhaps aided by some admittedly rather liberal leadership within the Church at the local levels.

Which is a contradiction. For in "unchanging" RC teaching we have many statements such as .the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906)
And variously (such as referenced in this post yesterday) to "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent."

And thus the laity is to look to leadership for the interpretation of church teaching, versus ascertaining the validity of what leadership teaches based upon their (the laity) judgment of what it means. And as leadership overall implicitly (at least) sanctions liberal Catholicism, from scholarship to politics, and according to vocal conservative RCs, the papal leadership fosters such, then it can hardly be said that your church stands very firmly against liberalism/progressive-ism/modernism and socialism. As for the latter, besides the present popes apparent animus towards capitalism, Rome has even called for a "a true world political authority" "universally recognized" and "vested with the effective power to...ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties." (ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE)

IMO a big part of all this liberal shift we see everywhere is the direct result of the people that began taking over all our education systems well over 50 years ago. Done intentionally to clone their beliefs and it has worked rather well - witness the many Americans now wanting to adopt socialism full scale when that would have been unthinkable in my childhood. That liberal shift occurred at higher level learning institutions too where many of our Priests come from. So it should come as no surprise that some, not all, of our leaders are very left leaning. None of this so far has resulted in a change of teachings in faith and morals. Some practices and customs have been altered, and not positively in the view of many.

This we agree on. The Puritans understood the principle of Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it, (Proverbs 22:6) and teach children (and higher) in the way they should Not go.

BTW I would not consider our Pope one of those liberals, even though the media insists he is. Can't believe most of what the media says anymore - bad as most politicians.

I think that is an Ostrich mentality. It is not simply a case of media misconstruance that is behind the abundant protests of conservative Catholics.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Am going to try to keep ignoring all the foul hatred and get to the only thing said relevant to this thread and what started our exchange.

Meaning like liberals, your frequent expressions of disdain of that which challenges you gets a pass from the charge of "hatred."

No, my Church was not the subject of the discussion I was having with another poster before it was rudely and rather nastily interrupted.

"Subject? The issue was what church is this that your reasoning holds that God would provide. So then if it was not Rome then what other church would God have provided according to your reasoning?

Having been a Protestant most of my life, my assumption would be like me, people would want to believe the Church they belong to adheres to teaching ALL of what God Himself came down to reveal to men to establish that Church (as in body of believers) through His Apostles (a body of teachings).

Again, obviously you implicitly have a church in mind. Why avoid admitting that you only have one that this church would be according to you. And which provocative presumption thus invites challenge.

So the discussion with the other poster was along those line, with him having said God still needed humans to come along after Him to periodically "revive" the Church and clean up the human corruption that he claimed would enviably always enter into and corrupt what was being taught.

Which obviously presumes an alternative, and which for you obviously implicitly is Rome.

Many Protestants, especially evangelicals (Baptist being most familiar to me) would reject many things from Christian history, including a few that are traceable to the first century.

Spoken by a member of a church whose distinctives are not even seen in the first century church of Scripture, and are overall contrary to it.

My remarks in that post to another person reflect that observation. So his claim about corruption would have to be it starts to enter shortly after Jesus floated off in the clouds. So regardless what Church one claims now, I was stating IMO that there are only a couple of reasonable views of Christian history to appeal to, to be able to say the Church one belongs to best represents what God intended us to know as Christians. And I would think it true that most Christians would feel that way about their Church. Otherwise they would seek out some place where they did feel that way (as I did and RCC was only my final stop).

And thus i dealt with the church that you implicitly had in mind as being that church, but which for you is just so much "spewing hatred."

A wise old Benedictine nun told me (a class) that she would rather we be good Baptists, Methodist, Lutherans, even Presbyterian..... than to join the Church and be poor Catholics.

As yes, "the Church." The only "one true one." The elitism still comes through.
I realize there are a boatload of evangelicals that believe all they need is their faith and a Bible (and maybe not even needing each others help really).
Which is clearly contrary to what Reformers taught, and thus they are not even really "Protestant" unless we adopt loose classifications which Catholics reject when it comes to their church.

The Apostles built a rapidly growing Church into much of the world with only a Jewish OT. They did it helping each other, (as we need each other to help strengthen our faith). They built a hierarchy within the Church both to help them manage/administrate Church functions but also to help each other and new members grow in their faith.

And again, the church they built stands in distinctive contrast to that of Rome.

They did that while passing down teachings they got from Jesus that are recorded no where in our Bibles today except they mention they were passing those down.

Actually, the Lord Himself established His Truth clams upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Passing down teachings that our Bible says all the books written could not contain - (that's a lot BTW).

Which is mere presumptuous propaganda and more abuse of Scripture. John does not that that there is much not recorded that the church orally passes on, but instead pints to what is written as providing what is salvific:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

They did all this under the guidance of the Comforter that Jesus promised He would send to them for their guidance in their efforts to do what He told them to do - lead His sheep - the Body of believers. What He started He also said would always prevail.

Which simply does not translate into the claims of Rome, even resulting in Rome declaring something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.

So my point was, again regardless what Church one belongs to now, to look at that effort and organization God led them to create and imagine it all starting to fall apart shortly after He left them such that He would need men to come along later to sweep out the trash periodically with a "revival" is a rather dim view of that history.

Then you entertain a fantasy in denial or ignorance of the judgment as well as the mercy and grace of God in the light of man's failure in stewardship as revealed in Scripture.

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)
And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. (2 Kings 22:12-13)

And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. (2 Kings 23:3)
And is was not oral tradition that preserved the Truth but what is written, which is God's chosen means of preservation.

Also a dim view of God's ability to ordain order in things He does and have it keep that order with the Spirit's help. Maybe I was not clear on this point, but I do not think most Protestants look at "revival" as being a house cleaning of wrong teachings or beliefs, which appeared to be the other posters position that I was responding to.
How most Protestant's answer that question about where did that Church go and in what sense does the Church one belongs to resemble it varies, but my point was most Protestants do attempt to answer such questions and obviously do so without agreeing the RCC today is that Church or that "revivals" are what sustains the correct teachings and beliefs.

There were always believers so that the body of Christ continued, but revivals are needed, and are Biblical.

So no, that my belief the RCC is that Church was not the point of my post. Not that this matters though, as am sure there is more hateful anti-Catholic rhetoric to cut and paste a reply to this post.

Obviously your belief the RCC is that Church was the inevitable conclusion of your reasoning, and if you had actually answered my questions your would implicitly admit that, and thus i dealt with your inevitable conclusion, but which to you is dismissed as hateful anti-Catholic in your "hateful" finger-pointing.

Such is too much akin to the refrain of "homophobia" in response to those who reprove homosexual relations, and resorting to such a psychological tactic warrants you being ignored.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

dupe

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The modern evangelical movement, as in fundamentalism, rose up in opposition to theological liberalism which attacked such "fundamentals , as the integrity (and thus its authority) of Scripture, with its literal historical accounts (verses such things as Gn. 3 (the story of the Fall), Gn. 4:1-16 (Cain and Abel), Gn. 6-8 (Noah and the Flood), and Gn. 11:1-9 (Tower of Babel: Balaam and the donkey and the angel (Num. 22:1-21; 22:36-38) being a fables or folk tales, and holding to the liberal JEDP theory, all of which are seen in RC scholarship), and the virgin birth of Christ, and His substitutionary atonement on the cross, and bodily resurrection and physical return.

Fundamental evangelicalism arose due to common assent and commitment to these core Truths, and as liberalism also substituted the evangelical gospel of conversion with a social gospel (much seen in Latin America Catholicism at the time), then in an overreaction fundamental evangelicalism shunned involvement in social issues in its beginnings, whereas now it is enemy #1 of liberals.

How can you say that your church stands very firmly against liberalism/progressive-ism/modernism and socialism? Sure, you can point to some historical teaching, but which is interpreted by modern teaching in word and deed which effectually fosters liberalism. If this was not true then you would not have the conservative sects in in RCC as the SSPX, and its sympathizers.

Besides entrenched liberal Bible scholarship, now you have a pope whose latest verbose encyclical sounds much like a NYT editorial, and who is regularly protested by conservative RCs, while Biblically the judgment of what one truly believes is based on what they do and effect, not mere declarations, and for decades Rome has treated even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death.

But that is just your judgment, while Rome manifests its understanding of canon law (etc.) by its overall treatment of such.

No, but as Scripture commands believers not to have fellowship with such, but to separate from them, (2Co. 6:14-18) then besides doctrinal issues, you cannot expect those in conservative evangelical churches to leave their own and become part of a church which includes even Teddy Kennedy type Caths as members.

Which is a contradiction. For in "unchanging" RC teaching we have many statements such as .the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906)
And variously (such as referenced in this post yesterday) to "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent."

And thus the laity is to look to leadership for the interpretation of church teaching, versus ascertaining the validity of what leadership teaches based upon their (the laity) judgment of what it means. And as leadership overall implicitly (at least) sanctions liberal Catholicism, from scholarship to politics, and according to vocal conservative RCs, the papal leadership fosters such, then it can hardly be said that your church stands very firmly against liberalism/progressive-ism/modernism and socialism. As for the latter, besides the present popes apparent animus towards capitalism, Rome has even called for a "a true world political authority" "universally recognized" and "vested with the effective power to...ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties." (ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE)

This we agree on. The Puritans understood the principle of Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it, (Proverbs 22:6) and teach children (and higher) in the way they should Not go.

I think that is an Ostrich mentality. It is not simply a case of media misconstruance that is behind the abundant protests of conservative Catholics.

Again and as evangelical's own magazines presented, they cannot just ignore and attempt to rewrite history. They did not shun social issues in their approach to abortions, they actually participated it administering and even justified some forms of abortions while ridiculing the RCC stand against all such forms of it. Attacking even the Scriptural basis for Catholics making their stand is not an example of simply staying out of social issues.

So no, and just as those same articles said, it took a wake up call to reverse their position and we should all be glad for that now. Am happy you have the stand you do now, but no need to deny evangelicals did not always take that stand and actually took stands that nearly every evangelical today would categorically condemn. That is not an example of shunning then later not shunning social issues, that is a 180.
By the Church's definition all Christians belong to One Body and it is the life support structure that God left behind for that Body. That definition does not mean the Church is under the illusion that all Christians are in, in anyway, union with the Church. So pointing to schismatics like SSPX and suggesting they are in union with the Church is simply wrong. Agree they are one (as there are more) version of what we could call fundamentalist Catholics, but the errors (which started over 50 years ago) that led to their excommunication have less to do with being conservative vs liberal than it does a gross misunderstanding of a Council declaration that was also used by a very loud liberal voice among Catholics to embolden them to stand up and attempt to force change. Both positions and their opposite reactions to that Council were and remain wrong. The Church has not only spoken out against both groups repeatedly, they actually eventually excommunicated some of them.
So it is not like the Church attempted to rewrite the history of Vatican II, unlike some here and others apparently are want to do for the 180 evangelicals took on abortion for example. Where there is error, whether moved principally by extreme conservative or liberal thought, it will be spoken out against and if not corrected eventually result in excommunication. BTW some groups from within the excommunicated SSPX have been brought back in union with Rome.

Look, I get it. Some people have a bug up there hind end that anyone dare claim their Church has a teaching Authority that one's own Church lacks. Fine. But going back to read what I posts that started these rants, that was never my point or intention. I was refuting the notion that another poster had made that his sense of "revivals" periodically cleaning house explains how the Body of Christ is as fractured as it is today. Having said that, I do see a single statement that would perhaps inflame the fire of hatred so I have just corrected that. The gist of that paragraph remains unchanged however. Bold is new edit.God's Order in the Church vs Man's Order
"As once a Protestant and even now for them, I see only a couple alternatives to maintain that thought and explain how a body of believers with the "most Apostolic" or in their view perhaps most correct teachings arrives intact today. None of those alternatives are particularly satisfying to me (adding "now" as obviously they were at one time)."
Note the first sentence admits there are Protestant cases being made now that appeal to their being truer to the Apostolic Church than others. So that is my admission that there are several Protestant arguments maintaining the order mentioned from God in prior paragraph (which is what "that thought" is referencing). Being one myself for so long I much more aware of that than most Catholics, especially cradle Catholics. And even my final sentence as it was, is only a statement that those explanations no longer are particularly satisfying to me and not a suggestion that others should abandon their position.
Revivals would not be one of those reasonable Protestant arguments, which is where I was going with all this in that post. And that much is clear in the very next and final paragraph. So am not even inviting that other poster to join the RCC or suggest that. My post was saying his argument that "revivals" explain the mess the Body is in is flawed.
The only one mistaking all that as shoving the RCC down someone's throat is the person so blinded by their hatred they can see nothing else from anyone posting that has any sort of Catholic faith declaration in their icon.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Meaning like liberals, your frequent expressions of disdain of that which challenges you gets a pass from the charge of "hatred."

"Subject? The issue was what church is this that your reasoning holds that God would provide. So then if it was not Rome then what other church would God have provided according to your reasoning?

Again, obviously you implicitly have a church in mind. Why avoid admitting that you only have one that this church would be according to you. And which provocative presumption thus invites challenge.

Which obviously presumes an alternative, and which for you obviously implicitly is Rome.

Spoken by a member of a church whose distinctives are not even seen in the first century church of Scripture, and are overall contrary to it.

And thus i dealt with the church that you implicitly had in mind as being that church, but which for you is just so much "spewing hatred."

As yes, "the Church." The only "one true one." The elitism still comes through.
I realize there are a boatload of evangelicals that believe all they need is their faith and a Bible (and maybe not even needing each others help really).
Which is clearly contrary to what Reformers taught, and thus they are not even really "Protestant" unless we adopt loose classifications which Catholics reject when it comes to their church.

And again, the church they built stands in distinctive contrast to that of Rome.

Actually, the Lord Himself established His Truth clams upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

Which is mere presumptuous propaganda and more abuse of Scripture. John does not that that there is much not recorded that the church orally passes on, but instead pints to what is written as providing what is salvific:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

Which simply does not translate into the claims of Rome, even resulting in Rome declaring something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.

Then you entertain a fantasy in denial or ignorance of the judgment as well as the mercy and grace of God in the light of man's failure in stewardship as revealed in Scripture.

And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Kings 22:10-11)
And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king's, saying, Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us. (2 Kings 22:12-13)

And the king stood by a pillar, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments and his testimonies and his statutes with all their heart and all their soul, to perform the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people stood to the covenant. (2 Kings 23:3)
And is was not oral tradition that preserved the Truth but what is written, which is God's chosen means of preservation.

There were always believers so that the body of Christ continued, but revivals are needed, and are Biblical.

Obviously your belief the RCC is that Church was the inevitable conclusion of your reasoning, and if you had actually answered my questions your would implicitly admit that, and thus i dealt with your inevitable conclusion, but which to you is dismissed as hateful anti-Catholic in your "hateful" finger-pointing.

Such is too much akin to the refrain of "homophobia" in response to those who reprove homosexual relations, and resorting to such a psychological tactic warrants you being ignored.

Again, as I just pointed out, my reasoning about how things arrived at now was to and against a poster claiming periodic revivals led by men (presumably moved by God) being needed to clean up His Church and toss out the corruption. The idea has merit only in the sense that God said the Comforter would guide them, and so it is reasonable to expect people corrupting teachings that have always been held to be true would be essentially be kicked out, forced to split.

Corruption has to arise because of human nature, yes. But it does not follow from that statement that we must be better off today believing everything not explicit in Scripture itself must be corrupt when not only does Scripture not say that, it declares itself that there is much more to learn from what Jesus taught than what Scripture can possibly hold. So simply saying, where is that shown in Scripture cannot be the only yardstick.

And there are several Protestant faiths that do not use that as their only yardstick. That various Baptists Churches of my youth are not know for that, but even some of them attempt to say their version of Christianity was completely ever present in Christian history as it is now. "Going underground" because of oppression from the corrupted Christians was often a part of that explanation. To me that is actually a better explanation than claiming God continues to sends new prophets to all of mankind, say like Ellen White, to lead a revival in His Church to clean out all the misunderstandings and corruptions.

The close of the above reply demonstrates my point about hatred again, as it was probably my action in reporting several people that got a thread closed where active homosexuality was being promoted as not really a sin. Anyone bothering to read all of my posts on that topic would be unable to make the false assertion made about me above. So the hatred being expressed here just from seeing any version of Catholic point of view expressed is obviously a hatred that blinds. My prayers would be such hate is released. If it cannot be released then my hope would be all Catholic members are put in ignored status so more people can actually have a discussion here.

 

[LoveofTruth]

As an Orthodox, I see church order as inherently Eucharistic.


It refers to the communion of the faithful, which is a Eucharistic communion.

For the Orthodox, participating in the Lord's Supper is the supreme act of unity and unification. By taking the bread of our Lord, I am joining myself to Him and to all the saints and all my brothers and sisters. We become one bread as we are grafted on to the Body of Christ in this mystery of mysteries.



To be clear, I didn't say that, Jesus did.



I disagree. I furthermore consider such a flesh vs. spirit dichotomy to be Nestorian. When we partake of the Eucharist, we become partakers of the Divine Nature as well as the human.


No, because the Eucharist only exists within the visible Church.


A lot of people can make false claims to having the Eucharist. The New Testsment provides us with the tools to identify who really has the Eucharist vs. who does not owing to schism or heresy.

To have the Body of Christ, one must be a part of the Body of Christ.


No, we actually do not.


I am not rejecting any of your arguments outright. While I do not agree with them, they are original, and not recycled; I like it when people present interesting new arguments.


No, because unlike Lutherans, I do not believe our Lord is in the bread, but that He is the bread.



The bread does not become corrupt in the stomach.



*rites



To my knowledge, that has never happened in the Orthodox Church. There is a Coptic church in Egypt which is in poor repair; birds live inside, but I am not aware of any desecrations occurring.

To protect the Eucharist against incidents like that occurring, we employ Eucharistic fans, canopies, umbrellas and other devices.

In the Assyrian Church of the East, if the Eucharist is defiled, the altar is regarded to be desecrated, and the priest must send for a bishop to reconsecrate it.



No, and no.


No, Jesus did.



I admire your sincere desire to find the truth. In this case, we are clearly not on the same page, but I am not going to, for one minute, decry any lack of effort on your part.

When Jesus said

Matthew 26:28 >>
For this is my blood of the newtestament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins"

Notice the words "is shed" Jesus hand"t died yet and without the shedding of blood there is no remission as we read in scripture. So clearly the cup and bread were figurative types of that future reality not in fact internal flesh and blood .and we also read that the New Testament is in by the shedding of his blood . We see in scripture

" 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth"(Hebrews 9:15-17)

This is the clearest section with Jesus words that rebukes the idea that when Jesus said this "is" my body and this "is" my blood of the New Testament he was not speaking of bread and wine as the literal flesh And blood for he has not yet died on the cross and until his actual death the testament was not in affect

Does that help

Now all who gather under error leave and escape from such confusion that would bind you under error

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

They met in homes and waited on the Lord for ministry and gifts and continued in the apostles doctrine, prayer and fellowship. The synagogues were places some went to witness for jesus and to bring them off from those things. Paul did this often but he set in order churches after the Spiritual guidance by God and in homes. We see many verses about this in the NT.

Also many of the Jewish believers were still under the law and zealous of the law and went to the temple and synagogues for gatherings. We see this in Acts 15 and 21. Even many years after Christ death possibly right up to 70 AD. So to even suggest that they went and made structures and called them "churches" is unbiblcal...................
.

Synagogues and Church/Assemblies are indeed used differently in the NT, but they are both assemblies...
Jews do worship differently than Christians.
Interesting that the word synagogue has the word "gog" [Ezeki 38:2/Reve 20:8] which I believe is an "assembling"?

Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
Strong's Number G4864 matches the Greek (synagōgē),
which occurs 57 times in 57 verses

4864. sun-agoge from (the reduplicated form of) 4863;
an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:--assembly, congregation, synagogue.

Luke 4:
16 Then Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up.
As was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath.
23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to Me: ‘Physician heal yourself! Do here in Your hometown what we have heard that You did in Capernaum.’”
28 On hearing this, all the people in the synagogue were enraged.
29 They got up, drove Him out of the town, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw Him over the cliff.

It is also mentioned in the book of Revelation:

Kindgdom Bible Studies Revelation Series

“ I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not,
but are the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9).
“Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie (reve 3:9

There is a sharp contrast between the “synagogue of Satan” and the “church of God.” Just what is this “synagogue of Satan”? Those of the synagogue of Satan were not the true church, but of the false church. Now the word for synagogue is not the same word we use for church. In the scriptures, church means the “called out ones” or the “summoned ones.”

 

[LoveofTruth]

Synagogues and Church/Assemblies are indeed used differently in the NT, but they are both assemblies...
Jews do worship differently than Christians.
Interesting that the word synagogue has the word "gog" [Ezeki 38:2/Reve 20:8] which I believe is an "assembling"?

Genesis 1:1 (YLT)
Strong's Number G4864 matches the Greek (synagōgē),
which occurs 57 times in 57 verses

4864. sun-agoge from (the reduplicated form of) 4863;
an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish "synagogue" (the meeting or the place); by analogy, a Christian church:--assembly, congregation, synagogue.

Luke 4:
16 Then Jesus came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up.
As was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath.
23 Jesus said to them, “Surely you will quote this proverb to Me: ‘Physician heal yourself! Do here in Your hometown what we have heard that You did in Capernaum.’”
28 On hearing this, all the people in the synagogue were enraged.
29 They got up, drove Him out of the town, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw Him over the cliff.

It is also mentioned in the book of Revelation:

Kindgdom Bible Studies Revelation Series

“ I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews and are not,
but are the synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9).
“Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie (reve 3:9

There is a sharp contrast between the “synagogue of Satan” and the “church of God.” Just what is this “synagogue of Satan”? Those of the synagogue of Satan were not the true church, but of the false church. Now the word for synagogue is not the same word we use for church. In the scriptures, church means the “called out ones” or the “summoned ones.”

The word "church" as defined in the New Testament never means a religious building. It refers to the lively stones a spiritual house the body of Christ.