ok a better way to put that is maybe that you are stating a commonly held position as if it were indisputable fact, and i certainly do not know, but just want to suggest that whether or not Paul actually even met Christ physically is disputed.
I think visions count.
i am only wanting to portray a view of "St Paul" that suggests that maybe he was not the hail fellow well met by the authorities of the day, nor was he likely considered even "respected" by...pretty much anyone i guess, lol; or at least almost surely not anyone in Jerusalem. Didn't Paul die alone, on some island, forgotten, an exile?
i don't mean to suggest that he did, so you are certainly right there imo. What i meant to say is that it is possible, speaking generally, for someone to adopt a definition of this "Church" to suit themselves, and then interpret the passages from that premise.
How does one "adopt" a consistent historical definition?
By which i mean i do this, too, even, but imo we should not be afraid to examine our definition of "Church," and the premises that this will cause say me to adopt, once i am able to include myself in this definition, which is of course the initial reason for anyone even trying to get a handle on, to define, such a...special? spiritual? ephemerous? word as "Church" anyway. Iow i...naturally also seek to define the word "Church" so that--initially anyway--i can discover how i might be included in that group.
You are included. Separation from the historic Church is one of degree.
Wounds to unity
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and
the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are
accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274
Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
Toward unity
820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples:
"That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279
So then, i am persuaded of some acceptable definition by some people that seem right to me, usually quoting out of the Book even; The Church looks like This, and does That, and does not do This, and so this over here is "in" the Church, while that over there--where you are perhaps--is not, and i can tell because see i have this verse, _______________, to prove it, so, sorry, but you are obviously out.
You are one of them, not one of us, because you call some other guy "father," let's say, and of course i am not interested in reading all of those verses about early church "fathers," or how that can be understood as just a term of respect for position which is likely earned and deserved, because you are--of course--interpreting those passages wrong. :)
It was the Early Church Fathers that compiled the canon of Scripture, so dismissing them so readily is contradictory and illogical. Rarely were they wrong, but their general consensus was not. They give valuable insights to the faith and practice of the early Church from the 1st to the 8th century, but you don't like them because none of them were Protestant.
1.
The Bible itself is full of examples of people calling an elder in the faith “Father”. Eliakim the steward is given a fatherly role of governance: Isa. 22:20-21 and in 2 Kings 2:12 Elisha calls Elijah, “My Father, My Father!”
2.
The New Testament refers to the first priests (the Apostles) as “Father”. In I Corinthians 4 St Paul teaches about the true nature of being an apostle and refers to himself as the “Father” of the Corinthians (v.15) and goes on to say that Timothy is his son. In I John 2 the Apostle John writes to his “children” and speaks to his fellow priests as “Fathers”. This follows the tradition of referring to the Jewish elders as “Father” (Acts 7:2; 22:1)
3.
Focussing on the prohibition against calling someone ‘Father’ misses the point. The point of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 23:9 is not to prohibit calling people “Father” but to warn against religious teachers who set themselves up as the sole arbiters of truth. Reading the verse in context makes this clear.
4 Jesus is warning against false religious teachers Jesus is teaching his disciples to watch out for egotistical false teachers. In the context he is criticizing the hypocritical Pharisees who were setting themselves up with particular schools of disciples. The disciples reverenced their scholarly teachers with the respectful titles “Father” and “Teacher.”
5.
Jesus is teaching the disciples not to be totally subservient to a human teacher. This is similar to Paul’s warning for the early Christians not to give undue reverence and allegiance to their religious teacher. In I Corinthians 3 he says, “For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,”are you not mere human beings? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
