Perhaps it’s to do with secularism…and “the wild heart”. What becomes of Catholics who turn their backs on the Church in such a fashion? Is it more dangerous for them than for people who were never part of the Catholic Church (I mean in eyes of the Church)?All Catholics are taught the Catechism, all of it. Nothing is assumed, they are all taught it. In other words, the TRUTH is taught to all, Catholics and non-Catholics. What they do after that is a reflection on themselves and not necessarily the Church.
That is not the traditional Protestant view. Read some Calvin (Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 1 and following). The Reformers believed that there was an invisible aspect to the Church, and that in times of great corruption and decline the visible Church might be pretty hard to discern. (Generally speaking the Reformed emphasized the visible Church more than the Lutherans.) But Calvin says that the visible Church is our mother and our school, and we cannot graduate from her in this life.This view is at one with the position, as traditional Protestantism (what we might call the “conservative” wing) sees it, that the Church which Christ founded is without evident form
That’s simply false. The idea is found in Augustine, and it was used to challenge Church authority by Wycliffe and Hus (this is basically why Hus was executed).The concept of an invisible church did not exist until the sixteenth century.
What book?I am reading the Catholic version of the Reformation right now.
Yes, but it’s not as if there were not serious moral problems in Protestant cultures as well. They were just different. The idolatrous pursuit of wealth, for instance, was sanctioned in Protestant countries far more than in Catholic ones.These are the places that, before the mass secularization that now blankets all Christianized cultures, had many abuses from corrupt Catholic hierarchy. For many years Protestants distrusted certain population groups as being morally corrupt, associating it with their Catholicism.
A small paperback called Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adam.What book?
I alluded to that slightly. Yes, the Protestants went hog wild on wealth and international domination. I see Protestants as more likely to commit white collar and corporate crimes than to soil their hands with crimes that bear their obvious fingerprints. They like law and order, by golly by gum. And they also care what the neighbors will think.Yes, but it’s not as if there were not serious moral problems in Protestant cultures as well. They were just different. The idolatrous pursuit of wealth, for instance, was sanctioned in Protestant countries far more than in Catholic ones.
Sounds like a book I should read. I have a couple other books by Adam, though I haven’t read them through.A small paperback called Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adam.
Thanks, I will make a note of this for when I finish the present round of reading. Why did you wind up an Episcopalian?Another good book on this is Eamon Duffy’s *Stripping of the Altars, *focused on England.
John Bossy’s *Christianity in the West 1400-1700 *is even better.
The same way why and how your forefathers wind up in whatever denomination you now have.Thanks, I will make a note of this for when I finish the present round of reading. Why did you wind up an Episcopalian?
Huh? Yet again the evil spirit of “we have the Truth so we don’t care about truth” strikes.The same way why and how your forefathers wind up in whatever denomination you now have.
The short answer is that my family freaked out at the idea of my becoming Catholic, and I wasn’t sure enough that Catholicism was true to forge ahead. I’m a very indecisive person by disposition.Thanks, I will make a note of this for when I finish the present round of reading. Why did you wind up an Episcopalian?
What??? Is this sarcasm? I missed something. I don’t have a denomination and have never officially been part of one.The same way why and how your forefathers wind up in whatever denomination you now have.
If you could, supply me with a link to where the invisible church is mentioned in Augustine.That is not the traditional Protestant view. Read some Calvin (Institutes, Book 4, Chap. 1 and following). The Reformers believed that there was an invisible aspect to the Church, and that in times of great corruption and decline the visible Church might be pretty hard to discern. (Generally speaking the Reformed emphasized the visible Church more than the Lutherans.) But Calvin says that the visible Church is our mother and our school, and we cannot graduate from her in this life.
That’s simply false. The idea is found in Augustine, and it was used to challenge Church authority by Wycliffe and Hus (this is basically why Hus was executed).
Edwin
The short answer is that my family freaked out at the idea of my becoming Catholic, and I wasn’t sure enough that Catholicism was true to forge ahead. I’m a very indecisive person by disposition. Wow. we are a lot alike. I could feel that coming through in your posts.
I come from a Wesleyan “holiness” background–not that different from yours in some respects. Technically, I don’t come from a “holiness” background. I’m not sure what the parameters of the term are. But I developed some sympathies with “holiness-ism” about maybe ten years ago. Previously, I always thought “holiness” had to do with those Pentecostal people who didn’t smoke and drink and dance the hootchee-coo. Is Wesleyan different from that? I am familiar with the Wesley brothers at least. I have visited John Wesley’s chapel once and found his famous quote: "I went to America to convert the Indians, but O! who shall convert me?"My folks also lived very sacrificially and spent a lot of time ministering to the poor and disadvantaged. They would be more like my maternal grandparents in that regard. Grandparents are more important than people realize. My parents were nothing like them and maybe I would be mad today were it not for the godly influence of my grandparents.We criticized Catholicism because we thought it gave people a license to live immoral lives while going through the motions of being religious. Exactly. I’m reading up on the “exterior” form of the Church and the “interior” to get a little more light on some things. Unconsciously, for most of my life I have tended to reject the material in favor of the spiritual. That probably has its roots in the fact that I see life as a suffering. However, I’m trying to modify that a bit, but the default keeps kicking in. I grew up in a house church essentially–we had a Bible study in our home and visited other churches without joining them. Close enough–I get that picture. I could tell you had been in some “lower than low church” places like me.
Since Wesley himself died an Anglican, I’ve made the case to myself that I’m returning to my roots. But in recent years that’s become harder to defend. How so?My wife is Methodist and I’ve been attending Methodist as well as Episcopalian churches (she actually loves the liturgy and is if anything more enthusiastic about Anglicanism right now than I am).
He didn’t use the terminology, but the phrase is often used to describe his understanding of the body of the elect as the true Bride of Christ, which is intermingled with the reprobate to form the Church we know on earth. Respected scholars such as James O’Donnell and J. N. D. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines, 415-17) use the term “invisible Church” to describe Augustine’s view. This is contradicted by some scholars, and when I used the term I knew I was making a controversial (though more or less standard) claim.If you could, supply me with a link to where the invisible church is mentioned in Augustine.
In advance, Thanks
Note yet again the language of “seeming” both for the “obstinate” who appear to be within the Church and for the devout who somehow find themselves outside the visible Church.Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are openly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is chaff, whether they persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the threshing-floor, or, when temptation befalls them, are carried out as it were by the blast of some wind. And even that man is always severed from the unity of the Church which is without spot or wrinkle, 11951195 In the Retractations , ii. 18, Augustin notes on this passage, that wherever he uses this quotation from the Epistle to the Ephesians, he means it to be understood of the progress of the Church towards this condition, and not of her success in its attainment; for at present the infirmities and ignorance of her members give ground enough for the whole Church joining daily in the petition, “Forgive us our debts.” who associates with the congregation of the saints in carnal obstinacy. Yet we ought to despair of no man, whether he be one who shows himself to be of this nature within the pale of the Church, or whether he more openly opposes it from without. But the spiritual, or those who are steadily advancing with pious exertion towards this end, do not stray without the pale; since even when, by some perversity or necessity among men, they seem to be driven forth, they are more approved than if they had remained within, since they are in no degree roused to contend against the Church, but remain rooted in the strongest foundation of Christian charity on the solid rock of unity.
Here we see a clear distinction between the Church to which the wicked seem to be long but don’t, and the visible Church in whose communion they are.For neither are they "devoted to the Church"13431343 Cypr. Ep . lxxiii. 11. who seem to be within and live contrary to Christ, that is, act against His commandments; nor can they be considered in any way to belong to that Church, which He so purifies by the washing of water, "that He may present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing."13441344 Eph. v. 26, 27. But if they are not in that Church to whose members they do not belong, they are not in the Church of which it is said, "My dove is but one; she is the only one of her mother;"13451345 Song of Sol. vi. 9. for she herself is without spot or wrinkle. Or else let him who can assert that those are members of this dove who renounce the world in words but not in deeds. Meantime there is one thing which we see, from which I think it was said, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord,"13461346 Rom. xiv. 6. for God judgeth every day. For, according to His foreknowledge, who knows whom He has foreordained before the foundation of the world to be made like to the image of His Son, many who are even openly outside, and are called heretics, are better than many good Catholics. For we see what they are to-day, what they shall be to-morrow we know not. And with God, with whom the future is already present, they already are what they shall hereafter be. But we, according to what each man is at present, inquire whether they are to be to-day reckoned among the members of the Church which is called the one dove, and the Bride of Christ without a spot or wrinkle,13471347 Retract . ii. 18, quoted on I. 17. of whom Cyprian says in the letter which I have quoted above, that "they did not keep in the way of the Lord, nor observe the commandments given unto them for their salvation; that they did not fulfill the will of their Lord, being eager about their property and gains, following the dictates of pride, giving way to envy and dissension, careless about single-mindedness and faith, renouncing the world in words only and not in deeds, pleasing each himself, and displeasing all men."13481348 Cypr. Ep . xi. I, first part loosely quoted. But if the dove does not acknowledge them among her members, and if the Lord shall say to them, supposing that they continue in the same perversity, "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity;"13491349 Matt. vii. 23. then they seem indeed to be in the Church, but are not.
Technically, I don’t come from a “holiness” background. I’m not sure what the parameters of the term are. But I developed some sympathies with “holiness-ism” about maybe ten years ago. Previously, I always thought “holiness” had to do with those Pentecostal people who didn’t smoke and drink and dance the hootchee-coo. Is Wesleyan different from that?
I use the word “Wesleyan” because “holiness” often has a specifically Pentecostal meaning, especially in the South. But yes, “holiness” Pentecostals have some Wesleyan roots. The “holiness” movement started out as a revival movement within Methodism, to recover what they thought were the original teachings of Wesley. Then some of these holiness folks started speaking in tongues, etc., and you know the rest of the story.
Since Wesley himself died an Anglican, I’ve made the case to myself that I’m returning to my roots. But in recent years that’s become harder to defend.
How so?
Edwin, thanks for explaining this. I think I got it figured out now. Your explanation helped.You might consider separating out your comments more clearly in your replies.
When I think of “holiness” I usually picture United Pentecostal people who don’t wear makeup and women wearing dresses to the ankles and sleeves to the elbows and men with pompadour haircuts. Reminds me a little of those people in the movie “The Apostle” who never had much edumacashun. (Maybe they are Church of God in Christ–I dont’ know.) That’s kind of the stereotype and, though I’ve known quite a few of these, they are a bit wilder than my grandparents ever were. Did you ever see the movie? I loved the tag team, especially where the tall guy is jangling keys and talking about Jesus doing a backflip on the devil!I use the word “Wesleyan” because “holiness” often has a specifically Pentecostal meaning, especially in the South. But yes, “holiness” Pentecostals have some Wesleyan roots.
Man, everybody’s got problems…even Methodism is pretty smacked out of its head these days, though there are some true blue folks left in both it as well as Episcopalianism. The one thing I appreciate in the Catholic Church is that, in spite of having the same factions within–they have managed to officially promote the truth that has always been believed and taught. But the entire Church, visible and otherwise, is under assault. Perhaps it’s time for all believers in Christ to truly embrace one another in fellowship instead of trying to prove themselves right all the time.Mostly because of the debate over homosexuality in the Episcopal Church and the growing isolation of American Episcopalians from worldwide Anglicanism (and orthodox Christianity generally).
Man, I love free thought, but too often the “free thinkers” make God a prisoner of His own creation. They claim to believe, but if they can wrest from nature or philosophy a *possible *explanation to a miracle, then they decide it cannot therefore be supernatural. But nature is itself supernatural and all that derives from God’s word of creation must therefore be supernatural as well, whether explainable or not.… there is no possibility of any Christian rapprochement with the prophets or believers of “free thought.” They are too small and narrow for us, and, however much they rave about the freedom of the intellect, they are not free enough for us. They are too small and narrow for us because they shut themselves up from the start in the limited world of phenomena, the world of appearances. They put artificial blinders on eyes open to unconditioned, eternal reality, because they will not see the real world, the world of God, which brings forth the visible world and maintains it in being. Plato would say that one of their eyes is missing, the eye that perceives what is above and beyond the senses, the Reality of realities, the Mind of all minds.
I share your sympathies. We want everything neatly tied up in a bow. But in the end the exterior is nothing and the interior is everything. It’s all about faith.I’m theologically more Protestant than I have been for years–but in others I don’t even give standard Protestant attitudes the time of day, so it’s very complicated).