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

[Cat_Herder]

From the Answers.com dictionary: ecclesiology - The branch of theology that is concerned with the nature, constitution, and functions of a church. The founders were not acting as a function of the Church.

That man is made in God’s image is absolutely the nature of the Church.

huh?

Jon

Lutheranism denied rights to Catholics. Calvinism denies rights to the non-elect. Anglicanism’s history is full of denial of rights to nonconformists. Evangelicals deny rights to people with the wrong belief system. And on and on. History bears this out: look at the slave trade and what churches opposed and supported it.

 

[onemangang]

Where in scripture are the apostles given authority over “Caesar”?

I reject the whole notion of answering within the context of your conditions of "Where in scripture are the apostles given authority over “Caesar” because of my views of Religious Epistomology.

All things, All authority has been made subject to Christ, and that will be fully realized in the second advent. The Church partakes in that authority!

Christianity is a revealed religion, a religion that was revealed through the Church.

His Church affirms the reality of the Incarnation, not the scriptures alone! Christ is God with us, and the Church makes Christ present!

Does Christ have authority over all men now?

Where in Tradition is the Church given authority to rule as a theocracy

Well, since ALL authority has been given to Christ, and the Church partakes in that Authority through Christ commissioning, the logical conclusion to that sequence is a Monarchy. It would be a Monarchy in the sense that Christ is King, and His prelate speaks for Him, as a mouthpiece. A True Vicar of Christ. Those that do not obey the Vicar, do not obey Christ.

Are we in this world, or are we of it?

Do you think it is the duty of humanity to follow Christ in this world? All things are subject to the rule of Christ! To not follow His rule is disobedience, and detrimental to all of society!

I would take the view of a Theonomy proposed by guy’s like Greg Bahnsen, to It’s natural conclusion. Where the Church is communicating as a living breathing organism, God’s words, as He intended!

If you want the Church to dictate civil government (theocracy), which Church gets the power?

There is only One True Church, and she has been commissioned by Christ, who am I to say otherwise?

Define “radical individualism”.

Each man being subject to their own self. The advent of the self, where everything is made subject to the individuals own perception of reality, subjecting reality to the self!

And I thught the Borg were Calvinist - you know, “Resistance is futile” (irresistable grace)

Jon

Lol. Resistance is futile!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

That man is made in God’s image is absolutely the nature of the Church.

Lutheranism denied rights to Catholics. Calvinism denies rights to the non-elect. Anglicanism’s history is full of denial of rights to nonconformists. Evangelicals deny rights to people with the wrong belief system. And on and on. History bears this out: look at the slave trade and what churches opposed and supported it.

This is certainly true, at least as regards the fact that the Lutheran countries in Europe made Lutheranism the state religion. I am not sure how Calvinists denied rights to the non-elect. Unless you believe that refers to non-Calvinists. Slavery? Which two nations in Europe were the largest slave traders?

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.” - Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, see also Romanus Pontifex

 

[Cat_Herder]

This is certainly true, at least as regards the fact that the Lutheran countries in Europe made Lutheranism the state religion. I am not sure how Calvinists denied rights to the non-elect. Unless you believe that refers to non-Calvinists. Slavery? Which two nations in Europe were the largest slave traders?

“We grant you [Kings of Spain and Portugal] by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property …] and to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery.” - Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, see also Romanus Pontifex

That’s dated 1452. This is dated 1435 and specifically states that Africans are not to be enslaved. The Saracens were Islamic terrorists so it’s easy to see why their imprisonment was authorized.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

That’s dated 1452. This is dated 1435 and specifically states that Africans are not to be enslaved. The Saracens were Islamic terrorists so it’s easy to see why their imprisonment was authorized.

From the Canary Islands, because they were baptized. Slavery of baptized Christians was illegal.

And it did not just apply to Saracens; it applied to “any unbeliever or pagan.” It applied to any land explored during the Age of Discovery, which was Asia, Oceania, the Americas, and Africa.

 

[Cat_Herder]

From the Canary Islands, because they were baptized. Slavery of baptized Christians was illegal.

And it did not just apply to Saracens; it applied to “any unbeliever or pagan.” It applied to any land explored during the Age of Discovery, which was Asia, Oceania, the Americas, and Africa.

Not true.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Not true.

And something 100 years later, by a different Pope, means the encyclicals 100 years prior were never valid?

The only point being, nearly every church has been guilty, at some point, of endorsing or looking away from the slave trade. (Those churches, of course, did not do so with “full Apostolic Authority”, though.)

Roman Catholics in the 1800s were part of the anti-slave movement, as were Protestants.

 

[Cat_Herder]

And something 100 years later, by a different Pope, means the encyclicals 100 years prior were never valid?

There was no interior colonization of sub-Saharan Africa until around 1531. Sublimus Dei was promulgated six years later. There was no Internet back then. I’m not sure what more you want from the Pope. The record is quite clear that the Church has always been against slavery not just of the baptized but also all other persons as stated in Sublimus Dei AND the 1435 encyclical Sicut Dudum, historically excepting only criminals and prisoners of war like captured Ottoman and Berber soldiers.

May I remind you that there were many, many African Catholics throughout the ages, and the only reason there weren’t many around this time was due to Islamic terrorism?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

There was no interior colonization of sub-Saharan Africa until around 1531. Sublimus Dei was promulgated six years later. There was no Internet back then. I’m not sure what more you want from the Pope. The record is quite clear that the Church has always been against slavery not just of the baptized but also all other persons as stated in Sublimus Dei AND the 1435 encyclical Sicut Dudum, historically excepting only criminals and prisoners of war like captured Ottoman and Berber soldiers.

Yes, but Sublimus Dei only pertained to the Indians in the Americas. Otherwise, why would African slaves have been taken to begin with, regardless of when, and that, mostly by Catholic countries? Had the Church forbid the practice, then why did it continue without any canonical penalties on those nations? And of course, we are only talking about Africa. What about slavery elsewhere?

May I remind you that there were many, many African Catholics throughout the ages, and the only reason there weren’t many around this time was due to Islamic terrorism?

So slavery is an acceptable practice if its done to “terrorists?” Do you believe that only those Muslims who militantly fought against Christian nations were enslaved? There’s no defense for the anti-Christian actions by Muslims, to be sure, but I somehow doubt that enslaving men, women, and children would be the New Testament response to such a thing.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, but Sublimus Dei only pertained to the Indians in the Americas.

Read both encyclicals again please…
Sicut Dudum:

Some of these people were already baptized; others were even at times tricked and deceived by the promise of Baptism, having been made a promise of safety that was not kept. They have deprived the natives of the property, or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery, sold them to other persons, and committed **other various illicit and evil deeds against them, **because of which very many of those remaining on said islands, and condemning such slavery, have remained involved in their former errors, having drawn back their intention to receive Baptism, thus offending the majesty of God, putting their souls in danger, and causing no little harm to the Christian religion

Subliminus Dei:

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

Otherwise, why would African slaves have been taken to begin with, regardless of when, and that, mostly by Catholic countries?

Because cafeteria Catholics disobey the Pope.

Had the Church forbid the practice, then why did it continue without any canonical penalties on those nations? And of course, we are only talking about Africa. What about slavery elsewhere?

See above

So slavery is an acceptable practice if its done to “terrorists?”

Slavery is analogous to life imprisonment. If you commit a crime against humanity like conspiring to kill thousands of people, then you get life.

Do you believe that only those Muslims who militantly fought against Christian nations were enslaved? There’s no defense for the anti-Christian actions by Muslims, to be sure, but I somehow doubt that enslaving men, women, and children would be the New Testament response to such a thing.

Well, you can’t put al-Qaeda detainees in a civilian prison. They’ll radicalize the civilian prisoners. So solitary confinement is the only other option (besides capital punishment which is all but impossible to justify). Solitary confinement + hard labor = legal slavery for all intents and purposes.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Read both encyclicals again please…

One pertains to Indians, the other to baptized Christians of the Canary Islands.

Again…Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas do no only pertain to Saracens. Both were used as justification for slavery everywhere, without the magisterium offering any objections to the contrary.

Because cafeteria Catholics disobey the Pope.

I’m talking about the papal response.

 

[Cat_Herder]

One pertains to Indians, the other to baptized Christians of the Canary Islands.

Again…Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas do no only pertain to Saracens. Both were used as justification for slavery everywhere, without the magisterium offering any objections to the contrary.
I’m talking about the papal response.

You have no idea how much of a hassle it is to copy and bold portions of a long document , like an encyclical, on an iPhone, so I hope you aren’t going to ask me to do it again. The bolded parts of each encyclical directly contradict your position. If you want to continue on this tangent, please address the text of the encyclicals.

Otherwise let’s get back to the original topic.

 

[JonNC]

Nobody is claiming that the Church would dictate the government. What we are saying is that the Church has a right to hold Caesar accountable when Caesar does something evil. Caesar is a man and Jesus is Lord over him as much as anyone else. The babies who die due to abortion have no one to represent them against Caesar but the Church.

I am happy you said this, because I think we were talking past each other a bit. I completely agree with this. In the recent debate, I thought Senator Santorum expressed this opinion quite well.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=onemangang;9008260]I reject the whole notion of answering within the context of your conditions of "Where in scripture are the apostles given authority over “Caesar” because of my views of Religious Epistomology.

All things, All authority has been made subject to Christ, and that will be fully realized in the second advent. The Church partakes in that authority!

Christianity is a revealed religion, a religion that was revealed through the Church.

His Church affirms the reality of the Incarnation, not the scriptures alone! Christ is God with us, and the Church makes Christ present!

Does Christ have authority over all men now?

Of course He does, but He also allows for free will.

Well, since ALL authority has been given to Christ, and the Church partakes in that Authority through Christ commissioning, the logical conclusion to that sequence is a Monarchy. It would be a Monarchy in the sense that Christ is King, and His prelate speaks for Him, as a mouthpiece. A True Vicar of Christ. Those that do not obey the Vicar, do not obey Christ.

But,of course, you are not advocating a world monarchy with the pope as its monarch.

There is only One True Church, and she has been commissioned by Christ, who am I to say otherwise?

No argument.

Each man being subject to their own self. The advent of the self, where everything is made subject to the individuals own perception of reality, subjecting reality to the self!

I’m not certain that this is what we’ve been talking about at all.

Lol. Resistance is futile!

Live long and prosper.

Jon

 

[onemangang]

Of course He does, but He also allows for free will.

No argument there. My point is that, we need a living, breathing voice to discern God’s will for mankind, in order to construct a moral, ethical, global society.

Lets look at Social Contract Theory

The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.

I think before the relation of man to government is addressed, the relationship between God and man should be defined.

I don’t think that is a role of the scriptures alone, but a role of the Church.

But,of course, you are not advocating a world monarchy with the pope as its monarch.

As I said in an earlier post regarding theonomy, let me clarify.

Paul Tillich famously wrote about ethics in the heteronomous, autonomous, and theonomous modes. To summarize all too briefly:

1 Heteronomous ethics is authoritarian, requiring submission to alien rules.

2 Autonomous ethics is the conceit of modern liberalism that the individual is a law unto himself.

3** Theonomous ethics, living in God and to God**

My view would be Theonomous ethics, living in God and to God.
I believe the Church is needed to make man aware of who man is, in relation to God, and the New law of Love.

So, I am merely advocating one nation, under God.
Absolutely! Man has revealed Himself to man, through the Church, so it would only be fitting to have the Church act as the Vicar of Christ, which would make the Pope the Monarch of the world! Does he lord over in power? No in love, representing Christ.

So a form of Catholic Theonomy, is what I posit!
ewtn.com/library/theology/lawlib.htm

I oppose Hebrew Reconstructionism or a Legalist Calvinist Theonomy!

I’m not certain that this is what we’ve been talking about at all.

When I was talking about radical individualism being born out of renaissance humanism, and protestantism being born out of humanism. I was positing that each man is in fact not surrendering to Christ, but the self, by individual interpretation.

St. Augustine
“Your design clearly is to deprive Scripture of all authority and** to make every man’s mind the authority of what he is to approve or disapprove of. This is not to be subject to Scripture, but to make Scripture subject to you.** If you discard authority, to what, I beseech you, will you take yourself?” (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 32:19 [A.D. 400])

Now I don’t mean purposefully, by any means, or in all things, but apart from the Church guidance, things get murky! The Trinity,The divinity of Christ, Humanity of Jesus, and so on. Things must be clear. Since God has revealed Himself to man, man can know he was made by God and for God. How does God rightly order, not just the individual, but all of society towards Himself, but through His Scriptures? The Church militant, in the Catholic social structure is a divine community ordained towards God. (Although many, by their own free will, don’t heed the call of moving towards God, they have a universal moral, and ethical azimuth) We can see that the scriptures alone, when interpreted by man, do not properly order man to God, or reveal, Who God is, as Triune! God does that through the Church!

So I do think it was relevant to the discussion on explaining the visible Church.
Sorry if I did not make the link clear

Live long and prosper.

You too, Shalom!

 

[JonNC]

=onemangang;9012737]No argument there. My point is that, we need a living, breathing voice to discern God’s will for mankind, in order to construct a moral, ethical, global society.

Actually, I don’t argue with this.

Lets look at Social Contract Theory

The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.

Ok.

I think before the relation of man to government is addressed, the relationship between God and man should be defined.

I don’t think that is a role of the scriptures alone, but a role of the Church.

I don’t disagree with this, either.

As I said in an earlier post regarding theonomy, let me clarify.

My view would be Theonomous ethics, living in God and to God.
I believe the Church is needed to make man aware of who man is, in relation to God, and the New law of Love.

So, I am merely advocating one nation, under God.
Absolutely! Man has revealed Himself to man, through the Church, so it would only be fitting to have the Church act as the Vicar of Christ, which would make the Pope the Monarch of the world! Does he lord over in power? No in love, representing Christ.

Well, first, before that would make the Pope such, ITSM there would have to be agreement regarding his role as Vicar of Christ. You probably knew I’d say that, lol.

When I was talking about radical individualism being born out of renaissance humanism, and protestantism being born out of humanism. I was positing that each man is in fact not surrendering to Christ, but the self, by individual interpretation.

By individual interpretation of scripture, I take it. But then, coming from a doctrinal Church, I don’t take on individual interpretation, as Chemnitz warns against.
Sola scriptura is not individual interpreation in that sense. Properly understood, it is the basis of hermeunetics, which is a practice of the Church, not individuals. So, I rely on the early councils, the creeds, and the confessions, and not my own individual interpretation.

Thanks for your clarification.
Peace and long life,

Jon

 

[onemangang]

Actually,

Thanks for your clarification.
Peace and long life,

Jon

The Catholic Church has much in common with the LCMS, I wish the same could be said about the rest of Christendom!

And Peace be with you!

 

[Calgar]

The Baptists say it doesn’t, and that anyone who is baptized as an infant isn’t properly baptized and will not be saved.

You are saying that baptism confers salvation?

 

[Calgar]

Can you name five things all Protestant traditions agree upon?

That’s a silly question. Why are you leaving the roman catholic church out of that question? There are several churches that claim to be THE church that Christ started.

 

[Julian0404]

The simplest and “to the point” discussion I have heard countering the “invisibility” of the Church was from the former Father Corapi wherein he declared - parapharse

1. JESUS was “visible”
2. The Apostles were visible
3. The believers were visible
4. The house churches were visible

Nothing has changed to make them or us invisible.

“Invisibility” is an attempt to enter JESUS Church, without acknowledging the “Keys to The Kingdom” and the authority therein. And if you try to get in a house without the keys, then your up to no good.