The Question of Catholicity and Christian Community Networks

May God give us peace and respect for our duly appointed Christian leaders in the Church. This is my prayer as one of the most difficult challenges facing our community project is this very question. It is our goal at this time to someday consider joining with other denominations, but we also see great blessing to maintain our own institutional independence to help better facilitate the reunification of all true Christians of a biblical faith into One Body once again. However, in order for this to be possible, we must be willing to accept and submit to biblical leadership and it is the goal of this work to defend our leadership, in theological principle, from the objections levied against it (mostly from the Catholic and Orthodox side of things). It is my prayer that this work will present a reasonable compromise among protestant polities, but will likewise also demonstrate that our communities are also really and truly apostolic with real apostolic authority.

In this article, we are going to discuss the question of catholicity. This will be one of several articles dealing with practical questions. As the founder of the Christian Exodus Project and an elder of the first session of the Reformed Catholic Church, I have been called to examine the arguments, questions, and objections of Christians from every sort of theological background. Now, as is known by all, some of the biggest misunderstandings exist between those of the old churches and of those churches that descend from the protestant reformation. One of the main areas of contention around this divide is the questions of authority.

Obviously, for the heirs of the reformation, the cry has always been that Scripture is the only authority along the Holy Spirit which indwells all believers (to which degree either has emphasis marks the difference between charismatic and Pentecostal bodies from that of other Protestants). Likewise, this is further complicated on the Protestant side by those who use authoritative summaries of biblical doctrines called “Confessions of Faith,” to which the degree of expected subscription required for their members and ministers likewise differs (e.g. quia versus quantenussubscription). We therefore see “confessional protestants” (e.g. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists, Dutch Reformed, and Reformed Baptists) being different from other “non-confessional evangelicals.”

On the side of the old churches, which often overlap with some Confessional Protestants (particularly Episcopal Lutherans and Anglicans), we see a great emphasis on church authority in the form of a “universal” and “original” church tradition handed down and deriving its authority from the apostles and the holy spirit and as safeguarding by the ordained ministers of God’s people who can likewise trace their ministerial lineage back to the apostles. The difference on this side has more to do with the degree to which the Bishop of Rome had prominence (with the Roman Catholic church ascribing to him an infallible authority ex cathedra) with others denying any bishop having unique authority over any others (as with the autocephalous model of the Eastern and Oriental churches). Such bodies also differ in terms of what councils are regarded as universal and the relevant authority of other smaller more local councils and how these all relate to the commentaries and writings of the various church fathers, canon-law, and the contemporary interpretation of some official teaching authority (e.g. Rome’s Magisterium); however, what unites them against Protestants is their insistence on apostolic succession and an authoritative church tradition as set against the reformation’s insistence of the authority of the Holy Scripture as interpreted by the Holy Spirit indwelling each believer.

We are determined to challenge this paradigm and we challenge this division fully and we instead claim to be the TRUE catholic church, the communion of all believers, which is once again being made manifest in these dark days wherein the West is declining and falling, either into chaos, or tyranny, depending on the form the judgment of God takes.

So then, when we call our church “the Reformed Catholic Church” we are obviously using an inflammatory name which includes the word “Reformed” harkening to the Protestant Reformation on the one hand and “Catholic” which harkens to Roman Catholicism. Indeed, we are Reformed, Evangelical, Orthodox, and Catholic. But how? How can we be all that? How in the world are we reformed and how can we call ourselves Catholic at the same time?

We shall answer these questions by: First addressing the critique of our opponents in the Roman Catholic churches and the other old churches which oppose the reformation on the grounds that it does not have valid ordinations (holy orders) and therefore that it (and therefore we) lack real substance and authority as a church, in this we shall also present the form of church governance we shall take as a community which is simultaneously faithful to the Scriptures and accommodating of the various concerns of those who would support any of the three main types of governance (Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Episcopal). Second, we shall make a case that we are not enemies of the historic faith and that there is a real case for church tradition which originates in our faith in the Trinity, the authority of the Bible, and the belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Third (and last), we shall describe what real catholicity looks like and what it implies in our practices as a Christian community.

I. On the Question of Apostolic Succession and How Our Intentional Communities Might be Governed by the Church.

1. Addressing the Charge Against Protestants Without Denying A Real Apostolic Succession in Ministerial Authority.

There are many that would say that a Presbyterian structured church cannot be either orthodox or catholic without valid holy orders; wherein, the ordination of ministers was performed by a bishop that could trace his own ordination unbroken back to the Apostles.

We believe this simplistic critique is invalid from all angles, for it can be argued that protestant holy orders, especially among the magisterial reformation actually meet this criterion (technically), but also that the absolutist interpretation of this claim is not only not true, but disprovable by their own understanding, claims, and common sources.

That there is a strong case for Apostolic succession in both the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers is neither denied nor even challenged here, but the question in dispute between historic reformation thinkers, especially of the magisterial reformation (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, Anglican), and the “old churches” (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East) was over the question of how this applied to holy orders and valid ordination.

If the Keys of the Kingdom were given specifically to the Apostles (of which the biblical case is strong) and not the church “in general” then to whom that authority was transferred by the laying of hands is indeed a relevant question (see Matthew 16:19 and 18:15-20).

The position of the papists and eastern church, though different due to a disagreement on the actual authority of the Bishop of Rome as the See of St. Peter(papacy), are the same in that they agree that the bishops alone share in apostolic succession and that the ordination of priests (pastors/elders/presbyters) is only valid if coming from a Bishop that shares in Apostolic succession, even though they admit that Baptisms are valid irrespective of whether they were done by those who shared in that succession or not ( we believe that this is inconsistent on the part of the old churches in that the power and efficacy of the Sacraments, as demonstrated against the Donatists and Novatians, originated in the power of the Word of God and not in any man).

However, this being said, the objection to Protestant Holy Orders by these other traditions has been that pastors cannot be considered to be valid in reformation churches because many were not directly ordained by a bishop who could trace his line back to the Apostles.

Several points to refute this claim:

(1) If apostolic succession is unbroken as such claim, and the unique office of Bishop was not formally instituted until over a century after the death of the Apostles (as attested by St. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine) then that means that there were those who shared in apostolic succession who were not Bishops. According to these ancient sources these men were “elders” or “presbyters” as the Presbyterian system existed prior to that of the episcopacy. Hence, the apostolic succession and therefore validity of the holy orders (ordination) of bishops actually originated in that of the presbyters and not the other way around; hence, making the requirement of the Roman and Eastern churches entirely baseless.

(2) If a priest, at the time of the reformation, received his holy orders from a bishop that could trace his line to the apostles, and then they (the reformer) ordained another priest (absent a bishop) that ordination is likewise valid for (as was demonstrated above) that priest or pastor’s share in apostolic succession is not contingent on an office invented by the church, but on the fact that such succession really was present and would be at least hypothetically traceable to the apostles, which in the case of John Knox or Martin Luther is indisputable (both being ordained by a Bishop), even as there were actual protestant bishops in both the Anglican and Scandinavian Lutheran churches anyway.

(3) If, as argued against the donatists and novatians, that the efficacy of the Word of God, both in the preaching of the Gospel and administration of the Sacraments, is not contingent on the actual conversion or holiness of the minister in charge (nor even contingent on their “traceable ordination”), then the absolute necessity of such an ordination to be a valid holy order is not absolute, but general. Indeed, if a group of Christians were stranded on a desert island without an ordained minister, they from among themselves could select elders, if qualified according to the requirements laid down in Holy Scripture, to minister Word and Sacrament, and those acts would be valid as would be his atypical ordination, not as normative, but out of necessity in the circumstance. This is because God’s grace, though conferred through appointed means, is not so bound as to admit of no exception (such as the thief of the cross not being baptized), for God does as He wills and His Spirit moves as He wills.

(4) These facts confirm that protestant Holy Orders are in fact valid, for holy orders originated in the presbytery and not the bishopric from the beginning and the inability to trace an ordination is not necessary for apostolic succession to be actually present (for such would make the work of God in ordination contingent on the human ability to keep and preserve records). Most magisterially reformed ordinations could in fact be hypothetically traced to apostolic succession anyway, and many can definitely be traced, even on their (the old churches) own terms. Further, the record of apostolic succession among the opponents of reformation are dubious in themselves and impossible to truly verify in many cases, and such are not absolutely necessary as the actual works of ministry (the exercise of the keys) are still confessed to be valid regardless of whether the ordination was ordinary and well documented. Lastly, even those of apostolic succession can be considered invalid and apostate, such as the case with heretics, women, sodomites, and simonists as seen not only in the history of the church, but among many of the so-called bishoprics in the world today, from the metropolitan (archbishop) of Moscow, the current Pope of Rome (Francis the Fag), the archbishop of Canterbury, and the liberal bishops of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches; all of which are not bishops at all, but surely damned in their heresies and wickedness.

(5) Does this mean that receiving Holy Orders in the old churches is unnecessary or pointless? Perhaps not, there is a benefit for the conscience of weaker brethren in receiving holy orders through the old churches as such an ordination will assuage their conscience and therefore work towards greater unity among God’s people. For the limiting factor among Christians is often this question. For protestants, the nature of the ordination has never had the same importance, and so the average Baptist or Presbyterian would not likely refuse to receive communion from a Baptist or Presbyterian pastor who had originally received his ordination from the eastern orthodox church etc; however, it is the case that many Catholics and Eastern orthodox Christians would not feel comfortable receiving sacraments from protestants who did not share in this interpretation of apostolic succession as coming from the episcopate. Thus, it is befitting and beneficial for protestant ministers to receive holy orders from those churches that are said to share in apostolic succession when the occasion and opportunity arises; however, such men should not seek such out through deception or wicked compromises against conscience, and should not regard such as absolutely necessary in order to faithfully shepherd God’s people. As a note, the only churches where this might be possible would be in Anglican-Catholic churches, Old Catholic Churches (pre-Vatican I, non-papist), and some Episcopal Lutheran churches (see ACC, PNCC, ACNA, REC, and ELDONA as potentials).

2. A Brief Consideration of Congregationalist Concerns.

One of the main arguments for congregationalism comes from priesthood of all believers; however, many Congregationalists have in the past fallen into the errors of liberalism even before other Christian bodies (the Congregationalists were the first to embrace Unitarianism and liberal theology both in America and England).

There is speculation as to why, but the biggest culprit seems to be the creeping in of egalitarianism through the democratization of authority in the church to include women in the church (as this priesthood would apply to them) and because leadership is divorced from specialized training in the Holy Scriptures and sound doctrine (which is why many deviant members are never excommunicated in such bodies because the people don’t recognize the charge as a sin due to biblical ignorance, even in defiance of the pastor’s recommendation, as I have personally seen with my own eyes).

Some groups, such as the Amish, have mitigated this with a mixed ecclesiology where elders are selected from the men only by the casting of lots and regional bishops are again selected by lots from the elders. The strength of this position is that women are excluded in all levels from such authority.

With this idea in mind, a type of reasonable patriarchal Congregationalist that acknowledges the priesthood of all believers while recognizing that at all levels, only men are to have real authority, would show his concern with Presbyterianism and Episcopacy in that such undermines the authority of a Christian as head over his own household (Joshua 24:15, Ephesians 5:27-33, 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 5:8) and as sharing equally in the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). Indeed, the charge that many Presbyterian churches and Episcopal bodies can become tyrannical and oppressive is not without warrant.

We must recognize the legitimacy of this concern even if we believe that a pure congregational model is neither the Biblical conclusion to be drawn nor is it the safest in safeguarding pure doctrine and piety (for the safeguarding of doctrine, the role of teaching, the laying of hands (ordination) and the authority to sit on counsels, was clearly given to elders as an office which qualified by their personal piety, headship over their own family, and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and zeal for sound doctrine (Acts 15, Titus 1:5-9, 1 Timothy 3:1-7).

The legitimacy in this Congregationalist argument therefore lies in that there is a necessity in the men of the church being vested with real authority to present their families before God in covenant relationship. Thus, the promise given to Abraham extended to his whole household (Genesis 17) and we likewise see that Joshua spoke with authority on behalf of his whole household (Joshua 24). We likewise see that the promise is given to us and our children after us in the New Testament just as it had been given to Abraham (Acts 2), which we then subsequently see whole households baptized on behalf of the belief of the head of each house (Acts 10, Acts 16, etc). Indeed, the authority of a man over his family is reflective of Christ over the church (Ephesians 5) and indeed, we are like Christ as believing husbands because like Christ we are kings and priests, a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). Hence, any model of Presbyterianism or Episcopacy which does not recognize the real authority of the Christian head of each house as a king of his castle and priest of his own wife and children, lacks biblical merit and subsequently will lack biblical blessing.

3. Some Implications for Our Community (The Christian Exodus Project and Christ the King Reformed Catholic Church and Village):

We shall have a structure of church governance, which like all admit regarding the early church, began with a Presbyterian model with elders sharing in apostolic succession, ordained by the laying of hands, as qualified by 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. That all members of a church are held to certain responsibilities and that all men have a responsibility and authority over their own household is likewise affirmed in our community and this authority extends not merely over the religious practices of their own household in all areas not expressly defined by the church, but also in regards to the appointing of deacons to serve under the elders.

This being said, we reject the Juro Divinio view that says that the New Testament prescribes Presbyterianism alone, nor do we admit (on the other extreme) that that the church has Carte Blanche to invent any offices it wants like those of cardinals, popes, presidents, and CEOs. Rather, we take a Via Media approach wherein church governance is flexible within the bounds of certain biblical limits. Thus, just as both apostles and elders sat at the council of Jerusalem, that the church might need to specify certain elders with a unique role of authority over a jurisdiction over multiple sessions (as the early church had to do as it grew, as attested in the fathers) seems reasonable to us. Thus, necessity could require the instituting of a bishopric (episkope) which is a separate designation given in Scripture (in the Greek), with the same listed qualifications as the position called elder (presbyterios). Hence, we admit of a possibly necessary and biblical delineation among elders (teaching v. ruling elder) and deacons (ordained and authoritative male-only deacons, and un-ordained non-authoritative deacons/servants of both sexes) and of bishops (bishops and archbishops) as a species of elder originating from that office and equal in general voting authority.

Here is an example of how it would work in practice in our own network of Christian communities:

The Session (The Elders (co-pastors), with assistance from the deacons, all men only) are a branch of governance over theological and ethical matters (including teaching, preaching, counseling, administration of the sacraments, resolving disputes, exercising church discipline etc) and for vetting new members and they alone have authority to remove people (with one exception) and can only do so by unanimous decision (excommunication), all other decisions of the session are to be made in simple majority. The excommunication is enforced by the ban (as rightfully practiced by the Amish in accord with 1 Corinthians 5), in which every family member shuns the person and after a period of three months, in which they have the opportunity to repent and be restored, are eventually removed from the community. The elders of a session are always to be men and of an odd number, at least three, with this odd number always maintained, with elders added at a ratio of ten households per elder (hence if there are three elders from the start, an additional 20 households would have to be added before a request for two more recommended elders for appointment are to be had). An exception to this rule occurs only once there are multiple sessions; in such a case the elders will appoint at that time a new bishop (our first bishop is the founding elder of the community) and from henceforth the session will have an even number of elders (minimum of four and will keep this number even in subsequent elections as long as there is a bishop). When the Council suggest potential elders, these candidates are further vetted and trained and so the session has the power to reject or remove a candidate before the ordination. In the case of deacons, as long as they are biblically qualified, the elders ordain whichever deacons are appointed by the Council. The deacons serve the session by assisting as the session may require in terms of reading Scripture, assisting with the sacraments and offering, handling the maintenance of the church and the treasury, teaching classes, as well as for appointing lower (non-ordained deacons, or church servants) including secretaries, janitors, etc. The session also has the power to consecrate special offices, such as evangelists (who are permitted to do lay preaching, outreach, apologetics, and who are permitted to be monogamous, celibate, or polygynist) as well as, teachers, and consecrated virgins (missionaries to dangerous places, full-time translators/researchers (modern monks), female virgin servants (modern nuns who do child-care, child-teaching, hospice, and nursing), etc. We deny that elders can be chosen by casting lots because the Scriptures teach that it is for a man who “desireth the office” of an elder (1 Timothy 3:1); however, such is not the same with deacons who may be chosen by casting lots as the Amish do for their elders.

The Council (The Heads of Households): are the other branch and contain all husbands or women who have neither havehusbands (widows, single moms, etc) or any male to represent them and their interests as a household. The Council decides on matters of a non-religious or secular nature regarding things like where a house has to go or whether to dam a river etc, and are responsible for the day-to-day management of the community. The Council also determines the sacramental practices for their own families, not the session (e.g., whether you will practice credo or paedo baptism or whether you will practice credo or paedo communion, etc.) and also choose among themselves deacons for ordination(men only, which can be chosen by casting lots as the Amish do for elders) to serve the Session (and who represent the local Council in the community network) and the Councilalso pre-vets future elders (which are ultimately appointed, trained, and ordained by the Session). The Council can also remove an elder by 3/4 majority vote and make changes to the constitution or charter by unanimous vote or bring a suggested change to the session for consideration by simple majority (these last two only apply if there is no bishop, unless the Councilsin all the communities do this in unison). New members vetted by the Sessionand presented to the Council can be vetoed from joining by 3/4 majority via an anonymous vote. A family not guilty of any moral or legal crime in the community can still be removed by the Council by a unanimous vote of the Council (called an incompatible character removal, though this is not an excommunication and no shunning is attached to it). Any family member can suggest a new potential member to the session at any time. The Elders remain part of the Council, but are to recuse themselves from votes pertaining to the session or changes to the charter or constitution.

The Bishop: In the event that necessity requires us to have a bishop (e.g. having multiple sessions), the bishop is then defined and empowered very specifically. The Bishop is a type of elder (as also affirmed by both the Amish and Reformed Episcopal Church) and is trained and ordained similarly, but is chosen from existing elders in service (as also practiced by the Amish), notdirectly from the people. The bishop, unlike the elders, is not tied to a local congregation permanently (and therefore is not part of a heads of household council), though he does have a "seat" or primary church with which he is affiliated. The bishop travels to visit each session under his jurisdiction and participates in any planned ordination services and will also personally administer sacraments based on request, and alleviate the local ministries from their preaching and teaching duties to give them rest. When there is a bishop, the session will have an even numbered number of elders with the bishop acting only as a tie-breaker in the event the elders have a tie in any given session. Likewise, the bishop can hear appeals from members under church discipline and can overrule a local session by casting a distinct vote (making it non-unanimous). The Bishop will also authoritatively represent the communities in negotiations and deal with other denominations or rulers, these general decisions made by the bishop are binding unless vetoed by a simple majority of all sessions or a unanimous vote by any one session (in which case the Bishop’s decision is frozen until negotiations are had). The Bishop can also issue direct proposals for consideration to any specific session or heads of household council at any time. The Bishop alone approves requests for transfer by families desiring to move to a different community location and can only be removed by unanimous decision of all sessions in his jurisdiction and ratified by simple majority of all heads of household councils. An Archbishop will only come into existence in the event there are more than four regional bishops and will take over the ordination of bishops, break ties in Episcopal decisions, etc. At this time we have no system in place for this and will not need one until the time occurs that we have MANY established Christian communities globally.

II. The Biblical Case for Church Tradition as Grounded in the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

1. Salvation is a Trinitarian Work. The Father Decrees and Draws, The Son Saves and Redeems, the Spirit Regenerates and Interprets.

When it comes to the idea of church tradition itself, Protestants balk and other churches idolize, but we shall take the balance of recognizing the Trinitarian work in history. God providentially governs the world for the sake of the church and His elect (Ephesians 1:11, Romans 8:28, John 6:44). This is plain in Scripture and implies that the work of the Father is decreeing in the economy of salvation as it pertains to ecclesiology.

The Son is the Word of God, the Logos (John 1), and thus the place of Holy Scripture in ecclesiology is that of Christ Himself, that is, the means of salvation (2 Timothy 3). It is by the work of Christ that Christians are saved and this work is firmly expressed in the idea that through Word and Sacrament ministry, we receive the salvation of Jesus Christ. Faith in Christ comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God who is Christ (Romans 10). It is by the washing of the Word that we are baptized into Christ and have surely been united to Him (Ephesians 5:26, Titus 3:5, Colossians 2:11-15, Romans 6). It is by the Word of God (in the words of institution) that common bread and wine become the life-giving Flesh and Blood of Holy Communion (1 Corinthians 10, 11, John 6), et al.

Lastly, and most relevant to this heading, we also recognize that the Holy Spirit is necessary to please God (Romans 8:6-8) and be united to Christ, for the Word of God (Christ) is applied to those whom the Father called, by the Holy Spirit. This is called the “economic trinity” and pertains to the unique work of each Person of the Godhead in our redemption, but it is not a naked redemption, but a redemption through the Church. After all, excommunication made by the elders functionally declares someone to be cut off from salvation (Matthew 18 and 1 Corinthians 5).

In the work of the Person of Holy Spirit, we have the application of the benefits of Christ’s work (and therefore the Word of God) to the one who has been called to such by the Father; however, we also see that this Word cannot be understood or received, unless the Spirit does a work (1 Corinthians 2:14). No man can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3) and all of Scripture is “God breathed” (2 Timothy 3). Likewise, the Spirit of Truth is sent to be our helper to guide us in all truth (John 15:26-27) and this Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost to equip the church for its works in the world in advancing the Kingdom of Jesus Christ as He reigns from His throne at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2).

2. God promises to preserve His Word and His Church by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

This same church (as discussed above) has been promised by Christ Himself to be preserved that even the gates of Hell might not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18, 1 Peter 2:9-10, Revelation 7:9, Revelation 9:24, Romans 11:4-6, John 10:28 ). Which means that no introduction of heresy or error is so great that she is no longer the true communion of all believers, nor will she ever be entirely lost on earth or in heaven, for the Kingdom comes on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10) and the Keys of the Kingdom bind on earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 18:18). Indeed, we have ample promise that this Kingdom will not only NOT be lost, but will grow exceedingly great upon the earth and to say otherwise is to deny the prophecy made by Christ Himself in this regards (Matthew 13:31-33, Matthew 24:14).

Some will rightly say, well such a church was established on the Rock which is Jesus Christ and therefore a church can only be the church if it has the Word of God (Matthew 7:24). This is true and we know it is true because, just as Christ promised to preserve His church, He has also promised to preserve His Word (Isaiah 55:11, Matthew 5:18, Isaiah 40:8, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, Matthew 24:35).

3. If we affirm the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all believers, then we must affirm the existence of an authoritative church tradition.

So when it comes to this work in maintaining the faithfulness of her doctrine from heresy, such must necessarily come from the Holy Spirit, for as we said earlier, no such doctrine can be rightly formed except by that Spirit:

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)

“If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.” (John 14:15-17)

“Now concerning spiritual gifts, brothers, I do not want you to be uninformed. You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many.” (1 Corinthians 12:1-14)

Hence, we must ask, how many Holy Spirits are there? If there is only One Holy Spirit, then there is only ONE right interpretation as it pertains to those things which are essential and necessary for our salvation and holy living as Christians.

The logic of this is undeniable;

[1] Premise One: All those who say Jesus is Lord and were baptized into Christ, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

[2]: Premise Two: The right interpretation of the Scriptures is Spiritually discerned (only comes by the Holy Spirit).

[3]: Premise Three: There is only One Holy Spirit.

Conclusion: Only one right interpretation is given by the Holy Spirit to Christians, and it is given to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit (which are those who have been born again of Water and of Spirit, who declare Jesus is Lord and are baptized into Him).

But you may ask: “how can we know which interpretation is the one given by the Holy Spirit?

As it stands, there are many present among those who call themselves Christians. So what can we conclude from this?

We must remember the texts we just read, there is One Holy Spirit, so there is one right interpretation of the Scripture and it is given to those who are Christians and Christians are all those, throughout all of history since the ascension of Christ, who are baptized and call upon the name of the Lord.

The implication is this: “The right interpretation of Scripture on any subject which pertains, necessarily and essentially, to salvation and holy living (which is clearly given by the Holy Spirit for the preservation of Christ’s church) is only that which has been believed by All Christians, Everywhere, and Always (Catholic), by which we mean majority consent (Vox Ecclesiae Est Vox Spiritus Sancti).

Otherwise, and ordinarily, we say that for all subjects (and not just those pertaining to salvation and holy living), that the only infallible interpreter of Scripture is Scripture itself (Scriptura Scripturae Interpres), which is is known to us and has been handed down from the ancient church as the Rule of Faith (Regulae Fidei).”

Thus, to deny things all Christians have believed, or to say that the church has been so corrupted that it lost the very means of salvation is a dangerous error, for it is morally dubious to doubt the promises of Christ regarding the preservation of the church and that these Christians did truly have, and were indwelt by, the Holy Spirit. Rather, we believe that Christians throughout time were given the promised Spirit as a Helper and that the Spirit is the Spirit of Truth, and that spiritual discernment was given to the church in time and for all time.

To reject or dismiss all church tradition therefore is to contradict the Scriptures. Thus we profess, that respect and study should be given to church traditions except where they plainly, explicitly, and obstinately defy the plain reading of Holy Scripture on a given subject, for there can be no conflict between the Persons of the Trinity and thus it is doctrinally impossible that truly catholic tradition (the Holy Spirit) could ever contradict the Word of God (The Son).

Now when it comes to those traditions that are truly catholic or to be regarded as coming from the Holy Spirit, we confess them to be very limited in actual number (contrary to the papists and byzantines which regard all tradition as authoritative). Rather, we limit them to certain select liturgical practices, the creeds, the primary canons of the seven councils, as well as theological expression of monergism (as laid down in the Latin tradition), and various matters pertaining to ethics and moral theology. Beyond these essentials, we believe that unity must take precedent and that the liberty should be given to churches and individual Christians on these other points of disagreement.

III. On What Actually Makes a True Catholic and How We Can Lead by Example.

The word “Catholic” means universal and the idea conveyed has always meant and was always intended to mean what was shared by all Christians. The idea of “Roman Catholic” is actually an oxymoron, it makes no sense (like saying the “small-large” etc).

Indeed prior to the reformation and the various divisions that rocked the church, there was just “the church” there was not any notion or concept of many competing institutions, the closest idea of this was the “schismatic” sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, but even here, their bishops were still regarded as heirs of the Holy Apostles and there was still a sense of believing that there was one pure faith.

Since these divisions, the alien idea of being a Christian but not a member of a particular church began to emerge especially after the Council of Trent (which came as a response to the Protestant Reformation); however, it is clear that such divisions and ideas are alien to Biblical doctrine and how Christians historically saw themselves through the centuries, for those for whom Christ died are His church and this is both the biblical and historical understanding.

So does this mean that we don’t have to be a part of a visible church so long as we are part of an invisible church?

No, for such ideas are likewise flawed in that they also don’t exist in Scripture in such a way, but rather Scripture teaches that there is one church and one kingdom on earth andin heaven. The church exists in a two-fold manner; firstly it is made up of the elect revealed in Heaven when all things are made new and of those elect who dwell in heaven even now. Secondly, the church exists of earth with the elect as sheep who are mixed with wolves who appear as sheep, or as a field of elect wheat mixed indiscernibly with weeds. This reality of the church is the same church which existed from the beginning of time and which still exists even now (and until the end of all things) on the earth. The elect of God are invisible to us other than the knowledge and pure faith we have been given which tells us that those of our kindred and the great saints of history who have died are presently alive in Christ and intercede for us on our behalf even now’therefore, beyond the elect which are hidden to us, we are primarily concerned with the church are the reality we see every day, hence the church for us is made of all of those who are presently baptized into Christ and physically living right NOW on the earth and who are part of “the Body of Christ,” not neglecting “the assembling together of the saints” and “the breaking of bread” and who have not been expelled from such a body in order to be “given over unto Satan” for sins that they refuse to be rid of even after being “rebuked by the elders,” for if we are His disciples and if we love Him “We will obey his commandments.”

Hence, if being a Christian is to be a member of the church that means necessarily that we must be united to Christ in this now present and existing thing called “the church” and of some local formation of this church in what might be called a “local body.”

But what church you might ask?

In some ways this is the wrong question, we ARE the church and we are showing forth our membership by receiving those outward means rightly administered: The preaching of The Word of God in the language of the people, Holy Baptism with water in the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and The Supper of the Lord in Bread and Wine. Hence, wherever this is done, that person is, as far as we can know (so long as they are in good standing of their local body and not in unrepentant public sin) a Christian and a member of Christ’s true church.

The outward fractured institutions are the problem and have been for some time, but they don’t represent “The Church” nor what defines who is a Christian and who is not. This is defined so by God, not any man. Thus, we must stop thinking in terms of whatever organization our “local body” is in fraternal cooperation with, and in terms of the whole of all believers presently living upon the earth in all their wondrous diversity.

**For a Biblical defense of the this subject in more detail see the article “Red Martyrdom.”**

Here are some implications:

1. Catholicity requires us to admit into table fellowship any Christian who has been rightly baptized into the Name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and for adults, that also make a credible profession of Faith in the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the God-man.

2. Beyond this, continued fellowship may continue and can only be broken when unrepentant public sin (as defined by the Law of God) emerges and is not resolved or by the obstinate public teaching of plainly and universally accepted heresies against the Gospel.

3. Thus, we admit Christian children, even as infants, to the table if they be baptized and will baptize and commune Christian children at the request of the Head of household. Likewise, we will abstain from baptizing or communing anyone’s children if it is not the desire or conviction of the head of household; hence, we are accommodating to credo-baptists (believer’s only baptism adherents) and credo-communionists (believer’s only communion adherents).

4. We recognize the two universal or evangelical (primary) Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion as necessary in identifying the right practice of a true church, and we accept membership transfers (a tacit recognition of their sacrament’s legitimacy)of any orthodox Trinitarian congregation and reject re-baptizing except if that baptism be Arian (heretically performed) or if an individual questions the Trinitarian nature of his baptism, has no access to formal records, AND was living in a continual state of unrepentant sin. We will not discipline someone who gets rebaptized even if we ourselves refuse to perform it.

5. Further, we acknowledge differences, even among ourselves, as to the status of the other five ordinances that some call Sacraments. Hence, we might say that they are sacraments in the sense of conferring efficacious Grace in some way, which seems undeniable, while also denying that they are so necessary that, for example, other ordinations are invalid or that civil marriages are no marriages at all, et al. Thus, while a matrimony service wherein marriage is treated in a sacred and sacramental way is preferable, it is not necessary for a marriage to be regarded by God as a legitimate Christian marriage even if deprived of some special work of the Holy Spirit offered through the administration of the Word of God in a worshipful setting.

6. We respect the church calendar, Christian feast days, and suggest (but don’t command) corporate fasting in certain seasons (such as Lent), but also acknowledge the unique importance placed in the New Testament on the Lord’s Day. We likewise accommodate brethren who are still convinced on the continued requirement to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath and other Old Testament feast days, and thus we likewise shall offer services on the seventh day in addition to the Lord’s Day (after the example of the Ethiopian church) and seek to make this whole weekend one of rest and worship. We also do not forbid members from celebrating the Jewish feasts.

7. In terms of worship, our main Lord’s Day Holy Communion Service shall be liturgical and borrow largely from the traditional Lutheran service (Deutches Mass) and the Anglican 1928 Book of Common Prayer, with some aspects from the Eastern Orthodox liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Theopolitan liturgy of the Communion of Reformed and Evangelical Churches. These services shall follow a one year lectionary offering Holy Communion every Lord’s Day and on the appointed feast days of the Church. Hence, diligent attendees shall hear and interact with the entire Bible, every single verse, in a year’s time, year after year, every year.

8. We shall also offer non-liturgical informal worship services which offer a longer expository sermon (doing deep exegetical analysis, book by book), hymns, psalms, and praise songs every Saturday morning (the seventh day service) and we will also offer interactive services which are more similar to bible studies with communion. These services may be done with acappella psalmody, with traditional hymnody accompanied by piano or organ, or contemporary worship music accompanied with a full rock-style band. The more people we have and the more traditions which are represented, the more styles we shall be able to offer; however, overtime, by the Spirit’s intervention, we hope to see God’s people unite around less and less styles of services and instead develop a more perfect united worship for all Christians. This is our prayer and our hope.

9. Who is really the true Catholic church? St. Basil did not believe that babies should be baptized and only adults (see his work On The Holy Spirit); thus, today the Eastern Orthodox Church (which claims to celebrate him even by occasionally practicing the liturgy which bears his name) would not ordain him for this belief as a minister even while they call him a father of the church. Similarly, St. Augustine, who gave Holy Communion to the infant children of Christians, though being called a doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, would not be permitted to be ordained in the Roman church today. HOWEVER, in our community, in our church, both could serve as ministers and be members, for we are the truly orthodox and catholic church. We are the Reformed Catholic Church, and we say this, unlike our distracters, without hypocrisy regarding those Godly saints we call our fathers.

-Josh Johnson