Ideas for explaining the 'visible church' to non-Catholics?

[grandfather]

“I see the Church as having both a body (visible) and a soul (invisible). Its body is not only the physical bodies of Christians or their places of worship, which are also called ‘churches’, but it includes creeds, praises, history, hierarchy, councils and customs. Its soul has life, grace, truth, love, and faith that should shine out through its body. I think that people can belong to the Church’s body but miss belonging to her soul, in the same way that Christ’s flock contains both sheep and goats that will be separated at the judgment, and Christ’s field grows both wheat and tares that will be proven on the threshing floor. I also believe that some people may belong to the Church’s soul though they are not a member of her body, when they sincerely follow the light that they have. I want to belong both internally and externally; I want to have praise in my heart as well as in my mouth, and love and faith within as well as good works on the outside. I want to have right belief, both inside and out.”

THis is very good. You might add to the praise in heart and mouth, faith and love in your heart that is manifested by works of love as described in scripture by the apostle James.

 

[jlhargus]

Would it be okay for me to say that the Church has both a body and a soul - the body is visible, and the soul may include the “invisible church”: those who do not subscribe to Catholic doctrine but are nevertheless a part of it? I’m using the lighthouse or “city on a hill” reference, grandfather, thanks for the suggestion.

JL: Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church tell us. You can search the CCC on line.

797 “What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.” “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.” The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p2.htm#797

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[Nicea325]

I am exchanging letters with an SDA about some of the reasons I’ve become Catholic. I tried to explain why I see Catholicism as being a much better fit than Fundamentalism as the continuation of the Christianity of the first century, based on extra-biblical Christian sources of that general time period. I grew up with the understanding that the Church was an ‘invisible’ network of all believers everywhere regardless of denominational affiliation, now I see that the ‘visible’ church makes more sense (while still including the ‘invisible’ church). I would love to read opinions of how I can convey this to her; we mean two different things by the word ‘Church’, and, although she does see Adventism as a remnant, she says that Church doesn’t have to do with a visible denomination. I’ve read the portion of ‘Catholic Controversy’ where St. Francis de Sales addresses the visibility of Christ’s Church; are there other resources I should check? (No SDA bashing, please. )

If the church is not visible,then how are humans to acknowledge Christ Church on earth,since humans are tangible? Was Jesus who is God…invisible or visible here on earth? Yes there exist a spiritual side,but to teach it does not matter what denomination one belongs to is not biblical at all. I am curious if anyone can show me where Paul teaches does not matter what church one follows,we are united through the invisible church?

 

[anodos]

If the church is not visible,then how are humans to acknowledge Christ Church on earth,since humans are tangible? Was Jesus who is God…invisible or visible here on earth? Yes there exist a spiritual side,but to teach it does not matter what denomination one belongs to is not biblical at all. I am curious if anyone can show me where Paul teaches does not matter what church one follows,we are united through the invisible church?

I think that this line of thought (the “we are all united through the invisible church no matter the denomination”) implies that the “invisible church” is seperate from and outside of any specific system of belief (this is how I was raised to understand it, anyway). Its almost more like a force or an atmosphere; you know its there, but you can’t put your finger on it. Nobody gets it right, everyone is equally wrong.

 

[anodos]

THis is very good. You might add to the praise in heart and mouth, faith and love in your heart that is manifested by works of love as described in scripture by the apostle James.

Thank you for the advice!

 

[Nicea325]

I think that this line of thought (the “we are all united through the invisible church no matter the denomination”) implies that the “invisible church” is seperate from and outside of any specific system of belief (this is how I was raised to understand it, anyway). Its almost more like a force or an atmosphere; you know its there, but you can’t put your finger on it. Nobody gets it right, everyone is equally wrong.

But even then,the logical behind it is seriously flawed. How can we all be united when so many denominations differ on so many issues and how salvation is obtained. Is baptism a sacrament or ordinance? Baptism for adults only or young children or infants? I really believe it is a cop-out as a means to justify the endless divisions outside of Catholicism & Orthodoxy.

 

[JonNC]

But even then,the logical behind it is seriously flawed. How can we all be united when so many denominations differ on so many issues and how salvation is obtained. Is baptism a sacrament or ordinance? Baptism for adults only or young children or infants? I really believe it is a cop-out as a means to justify the endless divisions outside of Catholicism & Orthodoxy.

Hi Nicea,
Why the caveat of “outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy”?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Hi Nicea,
Why the caveat of “outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy”?

Jon

Well my brother, by all means, I am not saying there does not exist divisions within the Catholic & Orthodox world. However, the divisions within the circles of Protestanism and fundamentalist are much more apparent and by and large much greater due to many denominations and non-denominations. Unless I am totally wrong?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Well my brother, by all means, I am not saying there does not exist divisions within the Catholic & Orthodox world. However, the divisions within the circles of Protestanism and fundamentalist are much more apparent and by and large much greater due to many denominations and non-denominations. Unless I am totally wrong?

You’re not, but I think it much more accurate to divide Protestantism into different streams of church types than it is distinct denominations, precisely because there is so much overlap between varying belief systems. Assemblies of God is not much different than any other Pentecostal denomination, for example.

Catholic apologists blame the splinters on sola scriptura (because it serves an apologetic purpose), but really, I think the differences center far more around eccesiology than they do interpretation. A non-denominational church may have the exact same interpretations as the Baptist church down the street, but because non-denominational churches view the church as distinctly consisting of local, independent churches, without any “national” organization, they will not unite with them to become Baptist.

To to the point of the thread, Augustine, most notably, wrote about the visible/invisible church distinction. That same thread of thought was adopted by Luther. The modern notion, however, is more influenced by Calvin, who deviated in his thinking from what Augustine originally discussed. The visible/invisible church distinction is best summarized as “the visible church consists of everyone in the church via Baptism. The invisible Church are all those present who believe what their Baptism is.” It’s basically just the wheat and the tares. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[onemangang]

You’re not, but** I think it much more accurate to divide Protestantism into different streams of church types than it is distinct denominations, precisely because there is so much overlap between varying belief systems**. Assemblies of God is not much different than any other Pentecostal denomination, for example.

Agreed

Catholic apologists blame the splinters on sola scriptura (because it serves an apologetic purpose), but really,** I think the differences center far more around eccesiology than they do interpretation. **A non-denominational church may have the exact same interpretations as the Baptist church down the street, but because non-denominational churches view the church as distinctly consisting of local, independent churches, without any “national” organization, they will not unite with them to become Baptist.

I agree more or less to what Iggy says here. although I would say that in regards to splintering, Sola Scriptura was the root, and Ecclesiology has become the branches!

I posted this in another thread, but it speaks to what Iggy is saying here

It would be hard to even make the case for denominations of Baptist. You might be better off saying that many are factions of the Reformed Baptist Tradition. But some may be more Evangelical then Reformed, so how could you possibly group them back into the fold of Baptist? Precisely because, they might have rejected the Calvinist/Monergist view of soteriology and incorporated some traditional Methodist teachings into their Baptist Tradition. The melting pot of non-catholic Christianity is so mixed, that each may hold to teachings that are closer to another Tradition, then from the Tradition they came.

Never mind the “non-denominational evangelicals” Some of them are all over the map, borrowing from Luther here, Calvin here, Hodge there, Wesley there, Oral Roberts there, Chuck Smith here, and Rick Warren there. They then end up with some sort of Arminian/semi-palagian 3 1/3 point calvinist theology that screams Total depravity, Unconditional Election, Preseverance of the Saints, with a penal substitution atonement, yet say all men can be saved if they get baptized in the name of Jesus only?

How do you weed out the myriad of faith traditions in that crowd?

I would love to see the splintering effect that the “Reformers” produced, go in reverse. It would be much easier to reason with a handful of traditions, than thousands, but that to me looks impossible. Good thing with God ALL things are possible, even that

A Denomination is such a spurious term when it comes to The Church. Denomination implies that the separate collectively make up a sum equaling a whole. Holy Mother Church is Whole within Herself. :grouphug:

So to label them as 41,000 “Denominations” is insufficient.Those that have been baptized into Christ are part of the One True Church, imperfectly, whether they like it or not :stretcher:

 

[Cat_Herder]

You’re not, but I think it much more accurate to divide Protestantism into different streams of church types than it is distinct denominations, precisely because there is so much overlap between varying belief systems. Assemblies of God is not much different than any other Pentecostal denomination, for example.

Divide it up based on soteriology, i.e. who is saved and how.

Evangelicalism: Jesus died only for those people who hear His Gospel and accept it. Everyone else goes to hell. This used to be called Arminianism.

Calvinism: Jesus only died for certain predestined people. Everyone else goes to hell.

Pentecostalism: Jesus only died for people who speak in tongues. Everyone else… you get the idea.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Jesus died for everyone. People only go to hell if they choose to do so.

Read 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and it is clear that the first three are untenable. If you don’t understand that Jesus loves and wills the salvation of everyone, then it is not possible to fully understand who He is.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Divide it up based on soteriology, i.e. who is saved and how.

Evangelicalism: Jesus died only for those people who hear His Gospel and accept it. Everyone else goes to hell. This used to be called Arminianism.

Calvinism: Jesus only died for certain predestined people. Everyone else goes to hell.

Pentecostalism: Jesus only died for people who speak in tongues. Everyone else… you get the idea.

Catholicism and Orthodoxy: Jesus died for everyone. People only go to hell if they choose to do so.

Read 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and it is clear that the first three are untenable. If you don’t understand that Jesus loves and wills the salvation of everyone, then it is not possible to fully understand who He is.

Soteriology is one way to do it. I wouldn’t, because there are some traditions that do not quite fit into those categories. How do you see Catholicism/Orthodoxy as different from Evangelicalism in soteriology, esp. as it relates to man’s choice?

I would divide it into Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy, Lutheran and Reformed.

 

[JonNC]

Well my brother, by all means, I am not saying there does not exist divisions within the Catholic & Orthodox world. However, the divisions within the circles of Protestanism and fundamentalist are much more apparent and by and large much greater due to many denominations and non-denominations. Unless I am totally wrong?

Yes, to an extent. I guess my mindset has never been that protestantism is an entity to be viewed as once united, now divided up. The term for me is merely an easy way of talking about western non-Catholic Chrsitians. I don’t see our division from Calvinism, for example, as any different than that between Rome and Orthodoxy, when it comes right down to it.
All siad, I now understand what you meant, my friend.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[onemangang]

Soteriology is one way to do it. I wouldn’t, because there are some traditions that do not quite fit into those categories. How do you see Catholicism/Orthodoxy as different from Evangelicalism in soteriology, esp. as it relates to man’s choice?

I would divide it into Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy, Lutheran and Reformed.

I would posit that Catholicism/Orthodoxy is far different from Evangelicalism, simply because one cant, point to an Evangelical soteriology, It is to fragmented. The soteriology of Catholicism/Orthodoxy is a systematic theology, that can be studied, whereas Evangelicalism, is often non-systematic and all over the map.

With that being said though, you might have to carve up us Catholics in camps as well if it is based on soteriology . Like the Molinism, Thomism, Augustinianism, Congruism, and Syncretism. Although, the Church has provided a framework to operate in, they are different views on soteriology, to some degree. Or at least different modes of operation within the Catholic Churches framework.

 

[Cat_Herder]

How do you see Catholicism/Orthodoxy as different from Evangelicalism in soteriology, esp. as it relates to man’s choice?

Evangelicalism requires only one choice, the altar call/Sinner’s prayer. But it has to be done at the correct “Bible based” church or it doesn’t count. Since there is no agreement about what exactly constitutes a “Bible based” church, no Evangelical really knows whether or not they are saved. In the end Evangelicalism misses the point: Christ asks that we repent, be baptized, recieve the Bread of Life and take up our cross each say and follow Him. That is the way to salvation; it is a process and not a singular event.

I would divide it into Roman Catholic, Orthodoxy, Lutheran and Reformed.

So the Arminians/Evangelicals get grouped with Lutherans? That’s actually pretty accurate although the Confessional Lutherans will deny it.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Evangelicalism requires only one choice, the altar call/Sinner’s prayer. But it has to be done at the correct “Bible based” church or it doesn’t count. Since there is no agreement about what exactly constitutes a “Bible based” church, no Evangelical really knows whether or not they are saved. In the end Evangelicalism misses the point: Christ asks that we repent, be baptized, recieve the Bread of Life and take up our cross each say and follow Him. That is the way to salvation; it is a process and not a singular event.

Ditto on the non-singular event. Although, I am Protestant and so hold to justification sola fide, it’s important to recognize the non-singular event aspect, and the sacramental nature of it. Some would argue that Catholicism, though, is ultimately “Arminian,” at least as relates to the choice aspect.

So the Arminians/Evangelicals get grouped with Lutherans? That’s actually pretty accurate although the Confessional Lutherans will deny it.

Oh, no, sorry if I gave that impression. I would lump them in with the Reformed camp. Although they may or may not be Calvinistic vis a vie predestination, minus that, they are a splinter from Calvinism and so share that common heritage of doctrine in most other respects.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I would posit that Catholicism/Orthodoxy is far different from Evangelicalism, simply because one cant, point to an Evangelical soteriology, It is to fragmented. The soteriology of Catholicism/Orthodoxy is a systematic theology, that can be studied, whereas Evangelicalism, is often non-systematic and all over the map.

All over the map, when its paid attention to at all instead of just being an emotional decision made during the 40th chorus of a song by MercyMe.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Ditto on the non-singular event. Although, I am Protestant and so hold to justification sola fide,

There are a lot of people who are saved without sola fide. Are you sure you aren’t confusing grace with faith?

it’s important to recognize the non-singular event aspect, and the sacramental nature of it. Some would argue that Catholicism, though, is ultimately “Arminian,” at least as relates to the choice aspect.

But Arminius asserted that salvation was only for those who accepted the Gospel. Again, many people are saved without having done so out of invincible ignorance, like unborn babies, children and the mentally infirm.

Oh, no, sorry if I gave that impression. I would lump them in with the Reformed camp. Although they may or may not be Calvinistic vis a vie predestination, minus that, they are a splinter from Calvinism and so share that common heritage of doctrine in most other respects.

They did split from both Calvinism and the Calvinist-influenced Puritans but they adopted Arminianism, right?

 

[grandfather]

Ditto on the non-singular event. Although, I am Protestant and so hold to justification sola fide, it’s important to recognize the non-singular event aspect, and the sacramental nature of it. Some would argue that Catholicism, though, is ultimately “Arminian,” at least as relates to the choice aspect.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, to an extent. I guess my mindset has never been that protestantism is an entity to be viewed as once united, now divided up. The term for me is merely an easy way of talking about western non-Catholic Chrsitians. I don’t see our division from Calvinism, for example, as any different than that between Rome and Orthodoxy, when it comes right down to it.
All siad, I now understand what you meant, my friend.

Thanks,
Jon

Indeed, Protestanism was never united as one from the get-go,but only has managed to divided even more. I personally believe unification under the umbrella of Protestanism is a much more difficult task in comparison to Catholic and Lutheran…for example.