When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

[OzSpen]

This is from the article from John Piper that YOU quoted: "Both are true and together they bring Christ the glory due his name."

Seems the source you provided that you were using as proof that you are right doesn't even agree with your belief. :wub:

What does your salvation by faith point have to do with my question: When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

Tom,

You have failed to read John Piper, the Baptist Protestant, accurately.

James 2:26 (ESV) reads, ‘For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead’ (ESV).

1. Just as the body apart from the spirit is dead (v. 26)
What happens when your spirit leaves your body when you breathe your last breath? We have information about this in Eccl 12:6-7 (NLT):

‘Yes, remember your Creator now while you are young, before the silver cord of life snaps and the golden bowl is broken. Don’t wait until the water jar is smashed at the spring and the pulley is broken at the well. 7 For then the dust will return to the earth, and the spirit will return to God who gave it’.

The analogy is:

2 In a similar way, faith without works is dead (v. 26)
The whole chapter of James 2 demonstrates that if you don’t have works that follow faith, then your faith is not genuine.

So to say that you are justified by your works is using justify to mean demonstrate to be righteous. Just as custard apples justify the existence of a living custard apple tree that blossoms and produces fruit, so a Christian’s works justify that he or she has genuine faith. Unless you have works accompanying faith, you do not have fair dinkum faith that saves.

That's what James 2 teaches. To say otherwise is to distort the meaning that faith without works is dead or useless. Genuine faith is always accompanied by good works. That's what James 2:14-26 teaches. However, good works alone will not cause a person to enter the kingdom of God. Good works demonstrate that people have the real thing, genuine faith in God alone for salvation.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It seems to me you are saying that scripture says all you need is faith????? (I may be misunderstanding you)

Tom,

I have never said that; I don't teach that and I don't believe that. It seems as though I may need to put my sermons on James 2 on my homepage for you to see that I am convinced from the Scripture of James 2 that genuine faith is always accompanied by good works. Otherwise, the faith is useless.

However, good works do not lead to salvation. Good works, according to James 2:14-26 (ESV), demonstrate that one has genuine faith.

See my post to you at #36.

Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I have never said that; I don't teach that and I don't believe that. It seems as though I may need to put my sermons on James 2 on my homepage for you to see that I am convinced from the Scripture of James 2 that genuine faith is always accompanied by good works. Otherwise, the faith is useless.

However, good works do not lead to salvation. Good works, according to James 2:14-26 (ESV), demonstrate that one has genuine faith.

See my post to you at #36.

Oz

At no point did you EVER mention James 2. You even doubled down on your belief when I mentioned it at one point saying "end of story". The ONLY justification you have talked about is by faith. You had plenty of opportunities to clarify yourself, and you didn't. It now seems you may be back peddling a little bit...but I digress. I ain't mad at ya.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

You have failed to read John Piper, the Baptist Protestant, accurately.

James 2:26 (ESV) reads, ‘For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead’ (ESV).

1. Just as the body apart from the spirit is dead (v. 26)
What happens when your spirit leaves your body when you breathe your last breath? We have information about this in Eccl 12:6-7 (NLT):


The analogy is:

2 In a similar way, faith without works is dead (v. 26)
The whole chapter of James 2 demonstrates that if you don’t have works that follow faith, then your faith is not genuine.

So to say that you are justified by your works is using justify to mean demonstrate to be righteous. Just as custard apples justify the existence of a living custard apple tree that blossoms and produces fruit, so a Christian’s works justify that he or she has genuine faith. Unless you have works accompanying faith, you do not have fair dinkum faith that saves.

That's what James 2 teaches. To say otherwise is to distort the meaning that faith without works is dead or useless. Genuine faith is always accompanied by good works. That's what James 2:14-26 teaches. However, good works alone will not cause a person to enter the kingdom of God. Good works demonstrate that people have the real thing, genuine faith in God alone for salvation.

Oz

I did not fail to read Piper accurately. I QUOTED him. The quote I provided from him agrees with Catholic teaching. The quote I provided from him was from the article YOU provided.

 

[OzSpen]

At no point did you EVER mention James 2. You even doubled down on your belief when I mentioned it at one point saying "end of story". The ONLY justification you have talked about is by faith. You had plenty of opportunities to clarify yourself, and you didn't. It now seems you may be back peddling a little bit...but I digress. I ain't mad at ya.

There was no need to mention James 2 when I was dealing with justification by faith in Rom 3:28; 5:1 (ESV).

I'm not back-peddling. I'm clarifying the teaching.

However, today (Saturday) I'll upload my sermons on James 2 so that you understand clearly what I teach. Justification by works can only happen as a demonstration of genuine justification by faith.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I did not fail to read Piper accurately. I QUOTED him. The quote I provided from him agrees with Catholic teaching. The quote I provided from him was from the article YOU provided.

The quote from John Piper, the Baptist Protestant, agrees with Scripture.

There's no need to shout at me.

Oz

 

[Wormwood]

I am now more puzzled than you. My OP had 21 words in it from Ignatius. You added "context" when you quoted 35 more words of his. I then quoted the entire chapter (roughly 130 words) and you are trying to tell me it was part of the OP? That's a 100 word count difference from my OP to the last post. I agree...You are truly puzzling.

Read what YOU quoted, "[But] shun divisions, as the beginning of evil."

That means there were divisions in the church at that time and divisions that caused the Reformation. He even called out the heretics of that time in the letter: But mark ye those who hold strange doctrine touching the grace of Jesus Christ which came to us, how that they are contrary to the mind of God.

So when you say that I am trying to use this text as a "half-baked argument against Protestantism or one particular ecclesiology.." is not true. It is not half-baked. It is in fact fully baked. Ignatius is arguing against any other theology, belief or doctrine other than that which was passed down thru apostolic succession to the bishops. But do we really want to put the entire letter in our discussion so we can have the full context that you so badly desire? If you wish, I will. Because by putting the entire letter in our discussion it bolsters my argument even more.

What do YOU mean by local churches? That they have their own autonomy to decide their own doctrine, practices and beliefs? (because that is what I thought you meant)

So, counting words makes you right? I told you why I didn't quote the whole section. It was repetitive. Doesn't negate the fact your point makes no sense.

Yes, Ignatius was confronting the practice of people performing religious rites and such without church leadership present as he felt this would lead to divisions and negate the local gathering of believers.

Again, you're being incredibly anachronistic here. Are you suggesting Ignatiaus would have been in favor or Christians attending places of worship where the leaders are practicing simony and indulgences? Are you saying Ignatius would have been in favor of greedy religious leaders mistreating the congregation and manipulating them out of their money to save them from an unbiblical period of suffering for believers in purgatory? Is he saying they should attend Mass so they can receive sacramental blessing from attending even though the entire service (as was done in much of the Middle Ages) was in Latin and most of the population didn't even speak that language? Is that what Ignatius is saying? Is he saying, "Hey guys, make sure you go to the "official" RCC church and not Luther's church because it's better to go to a crook who is after your money than be baptized by a guy who isn't "official" (when, in actuality, Luther was a priest in the RCC, so it's not like he was some Joe Blow who had no training).

Again, Ignatius is not talking about Protestantism. He's talking about people respecting the local church authorities. Obviously, division of any kind is not a good thing. Luther didn't want to separate from the RCC. He was thrown out because he confronted evil and unbiblical practices and felt the Scriptures had more authority than the Pope (which was why he was anathematized). Personally, I think he was right, and I know for a fact that Ignatius was not weighing in on this issue. Who knows, perhaps Ignatius would have defended Luther if he lived in that era. I doubt he would have been in favor of simony and indulgences. No one likes division, but sometimes, when doctrine is being corrupted and the Scriptures ignored, (as is happening with many Protestant groups today) then it is better to separate from those who are going astray to hold to the truth of the Scriptures rather than embrace wickedness for the sake of maintaining unity.

In any event, Ignatius is against division...yes, that is clear. He wanted people to be baptized and take communion with the local bishop present. But what he is NOT doing is telling us that Protestantism was wrong and the RCC was right in the period of the Reformation. We should respect and honor local church clergy. But if those clergy abandon the Word of God, then I do not believe we are under obligation to be loyal to them. Doctrine matters. I don't think Ignatius is telling us otherwise.

 

[tom55]

There was no need to mention James 2 when I was dealing with justification by faith in Rom 3:28; 5:1 (ESV).

I'm not back-peddling. I'm clarifying the teaching.

However, today (Saturday) I'll upload my sermons on James 2 so that you understand clearly what I teach. Justification by works can only happen as a demonstration of genuine justification by faith.

Oz

Thank You OZ....I look forward to reading them. What is your website?

 

[tom55]

The quote from John Piper, the Baptist Protestant, agrees with Scripture.

There's no need to shout at me.

Oz

I apologize. When I capitalize it is not my intent to shout...I am just trying to get my point across. :)

 

[tom55]

So, counting words makes you right? I told you why I didn't quote the whole section. It was repetitive. Doesn't negate the fact your point makes no sense.

Yes, Ignatius was confronting the practice of people performing religious rites and such without church leadership present as he felt this would lead to divisions and negate the local gathering of believers.

Again, you're being incredibly anachronistic here. Are you suggesting Ignatiaus would have been in favor or Christians attending places of worship where the leaders are practicing simony and indulgences? Are you saying Ignatius would have been in favor of greedy religious leaders mistreating the congregation and manipulating them out of their money to save them from an unbiblical period of suffering for believers in purgatory? Is he saying they should attend Mass so they can receive sacramental blessing from attending even though the entire service (as was done in much of the Middle Ages) was in Latin and most of the population didn't even speak that language? Is that what Ignatius is saying? Is he saying, "Hey guys, make sure you go to the "official" RCC church and not Luther's church because it's better to go to a crook who is after your money than be baptized by a guy who isn't "official" (when, in actuality, Luther was a priest in the RCC, so it's not like he was some Joe Blow who had no training).

Again, Ignatius is not talking about Protestantism. He's talking about people respecting the local church authorities. Obviously, division of any kind is not a good thing. Luther didn't want to separate from the RCC. He was thrown out because he confronted evil and unbiblical practices and felt the Scriptures had more authority than the Pope (which was why he was anathematized). Personally, I think he was right, and I know for a fact that Ignatius was not weighing in on this issue. Who knows, perhaps Ignatius would have defended Luther if he lived in that era. I doubt he would have been in favor of simony and indulgences. No one likes division, but sometimes, when doctrine is being corrupted and the Scriptures ignored, (as is happening with many Protestant groups today) then it is better to separate from those who are going astray to hold to the truth of the Scriptures rather than embrace wickedness for the sake of maintaining unity.

In any event, Ignatius is against division...yes, that is clear. He wanted people to be baptized and take communion with the local bishop present. But what he is NOT doing is telling us that Protestantism was wrong and the RCC was right in the period of the Reformation. We should respect and honor local church clergy. But if those clergy abandon the Word of God, then I do not believe we are under obligation to be loyal to them. Doctrine matters. I don't think Ignatius is telling us otherwise.

I never said counting words made me right. What I said was that by adding more context (more words) it only made my position stronger. You are the one who wanted to add more words (context), not me.

Ignatius was confronting the practice of people performing religious rites and such without church leadership present because it was leading to divisions in The universal Church. You keep using the words "local church". There were no "local churches" back then that had their own autonomy. They were all led by and answered to The Church in Rome with local bishops and elders as their leaders...just like Ignatius said. Any "local church" that was started without the blessing of the bishop (think Gnostics) was considered heretical. Churches were still small in his day so even if they had a single bishop in charge the bishop nonetheless had a group of elders around him to keep him in check. One of the elders/ bishop's main job was to preserve the traditions of the apostles unchanged to the next generation. The apostolic churches could produce a roll of their elders back to the apostles. This was strong evidence that they taught what the apostles taught' and thus Christ's doctrine.
So Ignatius charged the people to stick close to the bishop and elders. Don't baptize without them; don't eat the Lord's Supper without them; and don't teach what they don't approve. It will keep you in the doctrine of Christ.
Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. —Letter to the Ephesians

The above is evidence that Ignatius would say, "Hey guys, make sure you go to the "official" RCC church and not Luther's church to be baptized by a guy who isn't "official" .

He is IN FACT telling us Protestantism is wrong (at that time it was Gnostics he was writing about) because their teaching was a separation from the universal Church's teaching.

How do you know if the "local clergy" has abandon the Word of God? Who has the authority to determine that? You?? Ignatius said the bishops have that authority. The bishops had to answer to the universal authority in Rome.

My question still goes unanswered: When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

 

[mjrhealth]

They were all led by and answered to

Actually men where led by he Spirirt, but men being carnal rejected God offering for mens religions and look what it has doe , destroying all Gods Good works and making a mockery of Him and men do it gladly.

Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

So it goes without saying that those led byt the catholic pope are catholics??

 

[OzSpen]

Thank You OZ....I look forward to reading them. What is your website?

Tom,

I have formatted and uploaded 5 sermons I have composed and preached this year from James 2. They are:

James 2:1-7 (NIV): Faith and playing favourites in church, Part 1

James 2:8-9 (NIV): Faith and playing favourites in church, Part 2

James 2:10-13 (NIV): Break one law and you’ve broken the lot

James 2:14-20, Faith and works, a compulsory combination

James 2:21-26 (ESV): It’s true you can be justified by works

The last two on James 2:14-20 and James 2:21-26 particularly deal with the issues surrounding justification by faith and justification by works.

My homepage is called, Truth Challenge.

Sincerely,
Oz

 

[tom55]

Tom,

I have formatted and uploaded 5 sermons I have composed and preached this year from James 2. They are:

James 2:1-7 (NIV): Faith and playing favourites in church, Part 1

James 2:8-9 (NIV): Faith and playing favourites in church, Part 2

James 2:10-13 (NIV): Break one law and you’ve broken the lot

James 2:14-20, Faith and works, a compulsory combination

James 2:21-26 (ESV): It’s true you can be justified by works

The last two on James 2:14-20 and James 2:21-26 particularly deal with the issues surrounding justification by faith and justification by works.

My homepage is called, Truth Challenge.

Sincerely,
Oz

Thanks OZ. I have already read one of them. Will get to the rest later.

I hadn't noticed your link before on your profile page. Guess I overlooked it. Why the nickname OZ? Why not go by Dr. Gear or TheGearMan :)

 

[OzSpen]

Thanks OZ. I have already read one of them. Will get to the rest later.

I hadn't noticed your link before on your profile page. Guess I overlooked it. Why the nickname OZ? Why not go by Dr. Gear or TheGearMan :)

Tom,

Australians are commonly known as Aussies or the people from Oz. My Christian name is Spencer, hence the OzSpen. It's as simple as that.

Oz

 

[epostle1]

The words "the Catholic Church " ( he katholike ekklesia ) is found in a letter of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans and it was written about the year 110: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal Church."

Historically we know that Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John. If a student of an Apostle is calling the Church "universal" and saying where ever the bishop is that is where Jesus is then that leads me to wonder WHO is the bishop he is talking about?

When did that universal Church, being led by a bishop or bishops, stop being universal and stop being led by bishop(s)??

Short answer:
The Church has never stopped being "Universal' and has always been led by the Pope in union with the bishops. The College of Bishops is not in competition with the Pope. The Church is modeled after the Council of Jerusalem in resolving disputes and refuting heresies. The bishop he is talking about is an office, not a single person, because "wheresoever" doesn't imply a single location. Notice the unity he makes with Jesus, the bishop, and the people.

Long answer:
But "Universal" (Catholic) is one of 4 divine characteristics or attributes. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Last paragraph treats succession very briefly.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.
Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth
Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).
source

Essentially, your question is a Catholic question, and no one wants to be cornered into providing a truthful answer. That's why the thread got derailed with profoundly ignorant remarks by our in house "Catholic experts": on everything but the topic.

 

[tom55]

Short answer:
The Church has never stopped being "Universal' and has always been led by the Pope in union with the bishops. The College of Bishops is not in competition with the Pope. The Church is modeled after the Council of Jerusalem in resolving disputes and refuting heresies. The bishop he is talking about is an office, not a single person, because "wheresoever" doesn't imply a single location. Notice the unity he makes with Jesus, the bishop, and the people.

Long answer:
But "Universal" (Catholic) is one of 4 divine characteristics or attributes. One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. Last paragraph treats succession very briefly.

The Catholic Church has existed for nearly 2,000 years, despite constant opposition from the world. This is testimony to the Church’s divine origin. It must be more than a merely human organization, especially considering that its human members— even some of its leaders—have been unwise, corrupt, or prone to heresy.
Any merely human organization with such members would have collapsed early on. The Catholic Church is today the most vigorous church in the world (and the largest, with a billion members: one sixth of the human race), and that is testimony not to the cleverness of the Church’s leaders, but to the protection of the Holy Spirit.

The Church Is One (Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13, CCC 813–822)
Jesus established only one Church, not a collection of differing churches (Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, and so on). The Bible says the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph. 5:23–32). Jesus can have but one spouse, and his spouse is the Catholic Church.

His Church also teaches just one set of doctrines, which must be the same as those taught by the apostles (Jude 3). This is the unity of belief to which Scripture calls us (Phil. 1:27, 2:2).

Although some Catholics dissent from officially-taught doctrines, the Church’s official teachers—the pope and the bishops united with him—have never changed any doctrine. Over the centuries, as doctrines are examined more fully, the Church comes to understand them more deeply (John 16:12–13), but it never understands them to mean the opposite of what they once meant.

The Church Is Holy (Eph. 5:25–27, Rev. 19:7–8, CCC 823–829)
By his grace Jesus makes the Church holy, just as he is holy. This doesn’t mean that each member is always holy. Jesus said there would be both good and bad members in the Church (John 6:70), and not all the members would go to heaven (Matt. 7:21–23).

But the Church itself is holy because it is the source of holiness and is the guardian of the special means of grace Jesus established, the sacraments (cf. Eph. 5:26).

The Church Is Catholic (Matt. 28:19–20, Rev. 5:9–10, CCC 830–856)
Jesus’ Church is called catholic ("universal" in Greek) because it is his gift to all people. He told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of "all nations" (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).
Nowadays the Catholic Church is found in every country of the world and is still sending out missionaries to "make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19).

The Church Jesus established was known by its most common title, "the Catholic Church," at least as early as the year 107, when Ignatius of Antioch used that title to describe the one Church Jesus founded. The title apparently was old in Ignatius’s time, which means it probably went all the way back to the time of the apostles.

The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)
The Church Jesus founded is apostolic because he appointed the apostles to be the first leaders of the Church, and their successors were to be its future leaders. The apostles were the first bishops, and, since the first century, there has been an unbroken line of Catholic bishops faithfully handing on what the apostles taught the first Christians in Scripture and oral Tradition (2 Tim. 2:2).

These beliefs include the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, the forgiveness of sins through a priest, baptismal regeneration, the existence of purgatory, Mary’s special role, and much more —even the doctrine of apostolic succession itself.
Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice and looked to the successors of the apostles as their leaders. What these first Christians believed is still believed by the Catholic Church. No other Church can make that claim.

Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth
Man’s ingenuity cannot account for this. The Church has remained one, holy, catholic, and apostolic—not through man’s effort, but because God preserves the Church he established (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).
source

Essentially, your question is a Catholic question, and no one wants to be cornered into providing a truthful answer. That's why the thread got derailed with profoundly ignorant remarks by our in house "Catholic experts": on everything but the topic.

I have recenly learned the history of the Church and Christianity. The writings of the Church Fathers has been VERY helpful in learning what the early Christians practiced and beloved. I was thinking some of the anti-Catholics on this website might give me information that I have not been able to find on my own in the history books. They have failed. I suspected OZ would have chimed in if he had something worthwhile. He didn't.

 

[tom55]

Tom,

Australians are commonly known as Aussies or the people from Oz. My Christian name is Spencer, hence the OzSpen. It's as simple as that.

Oz

Interesting. Thank you....Respectfully Tom

 

[brakelite]

It seems no one can answer my question:

When did that universal Church, being led by a bishop or bishops, stop being universal and stop being led by bishop(s)??

It ceased to be God's church when they went into apostasy through adultery with the kings of the earth.

 

[OzSpen]

It ceased to be God's church when they went into apostasy through adultery with the kings of the earth.

Which means?

 

[brakelite]

Which means?

...that the universal church that Jesus declared would never be prevailed against cannot be the Roman Church, but outside of it. Thus the Roman Church is anything BUT Catholic.