The church has always maintained that even a layman can baptize someone, but this should be reserved for emergencies. A priest or bishop is the correct person to perform the baptism under normal circumstances.
Didn't jesus establish that the people were the church?
If we simply take Christ's statement to Peter, "upon this rock I will build my church (Matthew 16:18)" you will find people claiming that Peter is the church, the people Peter allows in are the church, or that Peter's statement is the church. All of these are valid, grammatically if we just look at the English in a vacuum. You can also look at the range of "church" in the entirety of the New Testament and you will find that these same statements can be affirmed depending on your perspective along with some other interpretations. So the question is, who has the right answer?
The council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. ended their creedal statement with an anathema against Arians that states "they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic church." In 381 A.D., at the council of Constantinople, the creed was updated to affirm belief in, "...one holy catholic and apostolic Church..." These councils were attended by bishops (the highest ranking Christians in cities) from Spain to modern day Iran and everywhere in-between. This indicates that those Christians believed that there is one church, and it consists of right believing Christians under the leadership of a person who can trace their lineage back to the apostles who is in communion with other churches meeting the same measure. I agree with those Christians.
But in the new testament, ekklēsia is always referred to as the people not the place.
(post is archived)