Christ's Church is Invisible

[jmcrae]

I know the Justin Martyr quote you have in mind, and it looks like my protestant worship service. There is no mention of a mass in that passage. Your reading that into the text.

I have been to Presbyterian worship services - the modern ones also look a lot like Mass. They didn’t used to, though. The original Presbyterian service of worship was actually patterned after Matins, from the Liturgy of the Hours.

They also didn’t used to have Holy Communion very frequently - four times a year was the norm, I think.

 

[Stewart42]

The point of making a visible/invisible church distinction it to explain the presence of false professors in the church. The invisible aspect of the church consists of all those who were predestined by God to be in heaven at the end of time. The visible aspect consists of all who profess to be Christ’s now; this would include false professors, heretics that are never found out, and true believers.

 

[jmcrae]

All he refuted was a straw-man. If someone would not mind, I’d like to hear a Catholic restate exactly what the think the doctrine of the Protestant doctrine of the invisible church is.

That every Protestant church on earth, regardless of what it teaches, contains “true Christians” as well as sincere unbelievers.

Those who believe (variously) the Seven Fundamentals, or the Westminster Confession, or Calvin’s Institutes, or the Lutheran Catechism, (choose only one, please) at least secretly in their hearts (especially if the official teachings of their denomination actually contradict one or more of the Seven Fundamentals, or the Westminster Confession, or Calvin’s Institutes, or the Lutheran Catechism, (choose only one, please)) is a “real Christian” ™ and will go to Heaven. He is or may be surrounded by sincere unbelievers who, though they believe the teachings of their denomination and are faithful to what they think Christ is will go to Hell, if their understanding doesn’t conform to the Seven Fundamentals, , or the Westminster Confession, or Calvin’s Institutes, or the Lutheran Catechism, (choose only one, please).

This is how it is possible for thousands of mutually-contradictory Protestant churches to all be the True Church, albeit in an invisible manner.

 

[Stewart42]

jmcrae,

If this is what you think Protestants believe, then you’ve go a lot of homework to do. No mainline protestant church claims to be the “true church,” or to have the market cornered on biblical truth. We leave that kind of hubris to the Catholic Church.

All of the historic documents you mentioned in your diatribe contain excellent summaries of biblical truth. And no Christian has to believe these confessions “secretly in their hearts” to go to heaven. We are fortunately saved by God’s grace, not simply by believing the rights doctrines.

Also, none of these confessions and documents you mentioned are “mutually-contradictory.” They all have one thing in common: a person is saved by God’s Grace. And I suppose you’re throwing this out there to try and shine a spot light on the fragmentary nature of the protestant church. You’re right; there are a lot of denominations out there. However, the Catholic Church’s own claim to unity is just window dressing. It is just as fragmented. Sure you’re driving the same bus called the Catholicism, but every one on it is wearing a different colored shirt. If the Catholic Church ever decides to require its members to actually believe true Catholic doctrine, it would leak and fragment faster than you could say transubstantiation.

 

[jmcrae]

jmcrae,

If this is what you think Protestants believe, then you’ve go a lot of homework to do. No mainline protestant church claims to be the “true church,” or to have the market cornered on biblical truth. We leave that kind of hubris to the Catholic Church.

Of course none of them claim to be Christ’s true Church, since it would be totally absurd.

I think Jesus was actually crucified for the “hubris” of claiming to be God the Son. The Catholic Church is the one that He founded, and it is not “hubris” (false pride) to “claim” this historical reality - indeed, it would be a species of false humility to claim otherwise.

All of the historic documents you mentioned in your diatribe contain excellent summaries of biblical truth.

While at the same time contradicting and condeming one another, or have they taken out the condemnations of the Anabaptists from the Westminster Confession, the condemnations of “ritualism” from the Seven Fundamentals, and the condemnations of Calvin and Knox from the Lutheran Catechism?

If the Catholic Church ever decides to require its members to actually believe true Catholic doctrine, it would leak and fragment faster than you could say transubstantiation.

The Catholic Church does now, and has always, required its members to believe what it teaches. When I joined the Catholic Church as an adult, I was required specifically to renounce all of my previous Protestant heresies, and to declare before God and the congregation that I will believe all that the Catholic Church teaches me to believe. I take that vow very seriously, and I’m sure most adult converts do the same.

That some people think they can disobey the Church without penalty does not make it so - they are already excommunicated latae sentiae, if not formally. (Many pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians have been formally excommunicated by their Bishops, as well.)

It’s amazing how few people are actually like that, though - other than politicians who think they will gain more votes by rebelling against the Church, the majority of Catholics, once they learn the truth, do change their minds and follow the truth.

This is different than not being able to explain the doctrine of Transubstantiation to a pollster, by the way, which is all those polls that claim that most Catholics “don’t believe in transubstantiation” are able to indicate. This is indicative of a lack of catechesis. Once people find out the real teachings, they usually adhere to them.

 

[TOME]

I have several things I would like to contribute here, some I am still working on how to express in clearer language that what is coming to me right this moment.

However, I would like to offer a suggestion. I think it would do all of us a service if each one of us, in our post, try to express what and why we believe what we do and try to avoid comparison to anothers faith and beliefs. I hope to state clearly what I believe and why not because someone else is wrong or their “religion” is wrong but what has lead me to assent to the beliefs I do.

Hopefully some will join me in this adventure.

 

[Stewart42]

However, I would like to offer a suggestion. I think it would do all of us a service if each one of us, in our post, try to express what and why we believe what we do and try to avoid comparison to anothers faith and beliefs. I hope to state clearly what I believe and why not because someone else is wrong or their “religion” is wrong but what has lead me to assent to the beliefs I do.

Hopefully some will join me in this adventure.

Your admonition is well taken. I’ll join you and tone the rhetoric it down. And it’s not like you guys haven’t heard it all before.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

I have several things I would like to contribute here, some I am still working on how to express in clearer language that what is coming to me right this moment.

However, I would like to offer a suggestion. I think it would do all of us a service if each one of us, in our post, try to express what and why we believe what we do and try to avoid comparison to anothers faith and beliefs. I hope to state clearly what I believe and why not because someone else is wrong or their “religion” is wrong but what has lead me to assent to the beliefs I do.

Hopefully some will join me in this adventure.

This forum is a Catholic Forum and its base are posters of the Faith. Protestants, Jews, and agnostcs, etc. are cordially invited to an amicable exchange of spirituality.

Let us not forget that attacks against the Catholic Church and its doctrine are constantly posted here.

Ironically, Catholics are being tacitly asked to refrain from expressing solidarity with the Church.

No one is required to pass muster to post however, Catholics do and defend their Faith here…they are dutibound to do so. Please don’t ask us to be timid about our Faith. That should be on a different forum.

 

[Patrick_Wright]

Christ’s church is very visible. Recall Jesus telling Peter that he was establishing His Church on Peter and would be with “you always even to the ends of the earth.” And “what you bind on earth is bound in heaven” etc. The Catholic Church tracks its leadership back to Peter and makes the claim of being that Church established by Christ. No other church does this. Also keep in mind that Jesus and his apostles were “visible”. Most Christian church’s today subscribe to one of the various forms of the Creed which expresses a belief in the “Catholic Church” although I notice the Methodist Hymn Book footnotes this as meaning “universal” which Catholic does mean. If they suscribe to the Creed, they should realize that a visible church recorded their belief system. To believe in an invisible (non-present) church seems to be a lack of information or a choice to deny the obvious. Patrick

 

[Stewart42]

Christ’s church is very visible.

Patrick, no one is denying that. And I think you’ve misunderstood the doctrine in question. The point of making a visible/invisible church distinction it to explain the presence of false professors in the church. The invisible aspect of the church consists of all those who were predestined by God to be in heaven at the end of time. The visible aspect consists of all who profess to be Christ’s now; this would include false professors, heretics that are never found out, and true believers. There is only one church, but this one church can be seen from 2 perspectives.

 

[look3467]

Arguments because of differences in beliefs will always happen unless the spirit of truth prevails.
The logical question to that is: “What is the spirit of truth”?

The love of God knows no bounds. That is the spirit of truth.
No matter how lost one may think to be, God has not settled on loosing you.
He will, via His Holy Spirit bother you, convict you, or persuade you by vexation of spirit to seek and to find a peaceable path of life to lead.
The more closer one is to God, the more apparent sin becomes.

But to have the naive notion that all must believe as we, can only lead us to wonder if our own beliefs are right.

That wondering is a catalysts to grow up towards maturity of faith, by where the heart rules, rather than the mind.

If you are going to be a Catholic, be a good one, a Baptist, be a good one and so forth.

But remember to lead with your heart, for a church who abides by the letter of the law has no heart.

Peace>>>AJ:heart:

 

[JeannetteCML]

TOME, thanks for the elaboration. Wanted to say the same thing.

 

[JeannetteCML]

I understand the Church’s teaching, but what does Jesus actually mean in this verse? Jesus did say my Kingdom is not here. Where is it exactly then? Did any of the Church doctors or Saints speak on this issue?

TOME said, “Christ taught the proper understanding of the Kingdom is God’s loving and active presence in this world here and now.”

So Christ just might very well be saying that God’s love and presence are not in Pilate’s actions and power against Jesus, then and there.

But… looking further at Jesus own actions and disposition in the circumstances, the Kingdom is still there, if only in the person of Jesus Himself.

The Kingdom is within you.

 

[Robin]

I really think it was inappropriate for teachccd to question your background and motives. You asked a simple, straightforward question that should have been easy to answer.

As AcruceSALUS suggested, our model of belief should be “faith seeking understanding”, not “if you’re a Catholic you better shut up and believe this …”.

Furthermore, I don’t see any good reason why a non-Catholic shouldn’t be allowed to engage the forum with questions, as long as this is done in a spirit of true discussion. There’s nothing more boring than a discussion among people who agree on everything and are too thin-skinned to allow anyone to question their beliefs.

I disagree. Teacherccd was just “cutting to the chase”.