Invisible Church

[LaSalle]

Has anybody come up with a good answer against this ‘new’ (when did this surface anyway?) Protestant theory that the catholic church is the collection of all those saved?

I find that trying to use logic doesn’t seem to work.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

LaSalle:

Has anybody come up with a good answer against this ‘new’ (when did this surface anyway?) Protestant theory that the catholic church is the collection of all those saved?

I find that trying to use logic doesn’t seem to work.

New, I don’t think so. That has been around for as long as there has been the Church.

The Scriptures make it pretty clear that the Church is a known and visible entity. It is called the city on a hill, a lamp, The assembly.

Of course it is all those who are saved and all who are Christian and all those who have died in Christ and are in Purgatory. It is not “Only” those who are saved but also those who will be saved.

 

[javelin]

I could be as simple as “catholic church” vs. “Catholic Church”. The word “catholic” (small c)means universal. It is separately the proper name for a Christian denomination (capital C).

To a protestant, all those who are saved make up the universal church (catholic church). If you’re not saved, you’re not in the church. “Church” in this context is not an earthly institution, but a spiritual entity that binds all believers. This is how they understand the term “catholic” used in the Apostles Creed.

I don’t really think this is new, although certain protestants may be spinning it in a new way. What have you heard about it?

Peace,
javelin

 

[Contarini]

:To a protestant, all those who are saved make up the universal church (catholic church). :

Actually, many Protestants (including Calvin!) believe and have always believed in a universal visible Church, made up of all those local churches where the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered. Of course, this is vague, because the Word and sacraments can be found in a state of greater or lesser “purity”; and Calvin himself gave rather inconsistent answers to the question whether the churches in communion with Rome were part of the universal Church (in debate with a Catholic cardinal he said yes, but some years later in debates with Protestant sympathizers who wanted to keep going to the Catholic Church to avoid persecution he pretty clearly said no). Today almost all Protestants who believe in a universal visible Church would give an unequivocal “yes” to that particular question.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[LaSalle]

javelin:

I don’t really think this is new, although certain protestants may be spinning it in a new way. What have you heard about it?

I think there are a couple of issues here :

1 They deny that there is one visible church that Christ founded. (I think this is not new)

2 the catholic church is an invisible entity that is a collection of all those saved. (This is the part I’m confused about)

3 Somehow, they’ve mixed up the terminolgy. They equate the ‘Body of Christ’ with Church. - I think here’s where the crux of the matter lies.

The definitions by the Protestants of the words ‘Church’ and ‘Body of Christ’ defer wildly from our own.

 

[LaSalle]

Oh, I’m still doing some checking up on this … newadvent.org is a good resource

“Passages which deal with the Church in her corporate unity are referred by writers of this school to an ideal invisible Church, a mystical communion of souls. Such an interpretation does violence to the sense of the passages. Moreover, no explanation possessing any semblance of probability has yet been given to account for the genesis among the disciples of this remarkable and altogether novel conception of an invisible Church. It may reasonably be demanded of a professedly critical school that this phenomenon should be explained.”

Unfortunately, this is all they seem to have.

 

[jeffreedy789]

perhaps someone should explain this. are you saying that the RCC does not teach the idea of an invisible group of saved persons which we call the Church?

 

[Juxtaposer]

I’m not Catholic, but I think I know both sides of this. Protestants (and remember that I’ll put an Evangelical spin on this without even trying) believe that the true Church is made up of all those who are “saved”. They don’t think that the true Church can be an official organization, especially since Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world. Protestants believe that you don’t have to be in any particular church to be in the Church. It’s between you and God. Most Catholics would argue that the true Church can be a visible organization, and, in fact, is; the Roman Catholic Church.

My two cents:
Ok, if anyone cares, here’s what I think. The true Church can be a visible organization. There’s no reason it couldn’t be. Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world. He also said that we are not to be of this world. Does that mean that we are not to be in this world? Protestants are apparently equating the definitions of in and of. However, this doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is in fact the Kingdom of God on Earth. I’m in the Kingdom of God, and I’m not Catholic. Maybe you don’t think I am in the Kingdom, but that’s irrelevant. For arguments’s sake, let’s just pretend that the Catholic Church is in fact the true Church, and hence, the Kingdom of God on Earth. Then we must also say that not all who are in the Catholic Church are in this Kingdom, and many who are not in the Catholic Church are in this Kingdom.

Sorry if I didn’t make sense. It’s really, really late here.

 

[Maccabees]

Actually The Catholic Church beleives in an invisible church.
Hence statments of seperated brethren, Jews, and Muslims share in the plan of salvation. Some are catholic they just don’t know it yet.
The big difference is that the church also beleives in a visible chuch on earth. The invisible part gets worked out whereby those physically sepearted from the church reunites with the other part of the Catholic Church in heaven. Known as the church triumphant. THe Catholic Church that is visible on earth is the church militant.

The church in the bible is clearly one visible church that declared unfied dcontrine had unified church councils and so forth.

Not the chaos we see in protestantism. The church in the Bible sopke for Christ and declared doctrine for not only its members but to the angels in heave. Now thats the power to bind and loose.

Ephesians 3
8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make all see what is the fellowship1] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;2] 10to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places,

No protestant church can claim this divine authority to teach not do they even dare attempt so. The mere fact there are thousands of competing churches using the authority of the Bible alone would make theat postion laughable. What you hear is that we aagree on the essentials and disagree on the unessentials. Sorry Jesus told the aposltes to go into the world and preach and teach them all things not some essential things and let them disagree on some things just give them the Bible and let them figure it out.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Maccabees:

Not the chaos we see in protestantism. The church in the Bible sopke for Christ and declared doctrine for not only its members but to the angels in heave. Now thats the power to bind and loose.

Where are you getting this from?

 

[Genuflecter]

This idea that the Church can only be united invisibly might be an old one, but I haven’t come across anything that suggests it was around before the reformation. Without incentive to do so, no one would invent such an unlikely doctrine. The early “Christians” were not duelists. They believed our bodies are part of us, not simply a holding place for our souls. Would they even think it possible to have an “invisible” unity if we are divided in the temporal? It would be a divisive idea at the very least and yet gratifying for someone seeking to justify being separated from the communion of the Church. That was not something that was sought after until later reformers realized they couldn’t change the long held teachings of the Apostolic Church. Even the early Protestants simply wanted to “reform” the Church, not split it apart.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Genuflecter:

This idea that the Church can only be united invisibly might be an old one, but I haven’t come across anything that suggests it was around before the reformation. Without incentive to do so, no one would invent such an unlikely doctrine. The early “Christians” were not duelists. They believed our bodies are part of us, not simply a holding place for our souls. Would they even think it possible to have an “invisible” unity if we are divided in the temporal? It would be a divisive idea at the very least and yet gratifying for someone seeking to justify being separated from the communion of the Church. That was not something that was sought after until later reformers realized they couldn’t change the long held teachings of the Apostolic Church. Even the early Protestants simply wanted to “reform” the Church, not split it apart.

By the Protestant view of the invisible Church we are not necessarily divided temporally. We are all still in the Body of Christ, it’s just that this body isn’t exclusively the Catholic Church.

The only reformer that didn’t want a schism that I can think of is Martin Luther. The others, especially Zwingli, did in fact want to break away.

 

[javelin]

Maccabees:

The church in the Bible sopke for Christ and declared doctrine for not only its members but to the angels in heaven. Now thats the power to bind and loose.

Juxtaposer:

Where are you getting this from?

This part of the quote that immediately followed his statement, I believe (emphasis mine):

Maccabees:

Ephesians 3
10 to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the church to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places

I hadn’t heard that before. Interesting.

Peace,
javelin

 

[Joanna]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

818:
All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church".

819: Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to Him and **are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.” **

I don’t know if we can safely go further than this by suggesting that this is the fullness of unity to which we are called - too much remains to be done toward unity of heart. We may be an “invisible church” united to Christ but we are poor examples of a Church that visibly witnesses Christ by brothers loving one another. There is yet something missing that must be supplied before we can be said to fully exhibit the **One, **just as there is something lacking on our parts as individuals in living up to the Holy dimension of our call to be Catholic Church. I think God sees us as One Holy Catholic from His throne outside of Time and so that is what we are. From our side of Time and Eternity, we are still struggling and still called to live out our profession of Faith, for that is what we and our separated brethren are called to be in Christ.

 

[Juxtaposer]

That stuff from the Catechism was beautiful. However, I think that I and most non-Catholics would have a major problem with this:

Joanna:

Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.

 

[Joanna]

Juxtaposer:

That stuff from the Catechism was beautiful. However, I think that I and most non-Catholics would have a major problem with this:

With due respect, Juxtaposer, it isn’t just “stuff”. It’s the Fidei Depositum, the rich and extensive Deposit of the Faith entrusted to Christ’s Church. It has been handed down to us by men and women who witnessed it with their lives and in many cases with their blood as well. Thus it deserves both respect and a hearing.

I know it doesn’t appeal to all, but as Christ died for all, all should have at least the chance to receive it. It is a challenge to me just as it is to all who would hear it.

I agree with you; it is beautiful. Its beauty comes from God as does everything that is truly beautiful. Perhaps, reading it without raising objections, but asking with loving submission, “How can these things be?” You’re question can be a prayer of self-surrender to none but God. I’ve found that the Holy Spirit over the course of time willing shows us through various avenues and in a miriad of ways whatever faithfully reflects the Christ. That’s all I hope for in these forums.

Peace,
Joanna

 

[Juxtaposer]

Joanna:

Perhaps, reading it without raising objections, but asking with loving submission, “How can these things be?” You’re question can be a prayer of self-surrender to none but God.

So should I be asking God how the grace that I receive comes through the Catholic Church and not directly through Him?

 

[Joanna]

Juxtaposer:

So should I be asking God how the grace that I receive comes through the Catholic Church and not directly through Him?

Forgive me, if my response was, too, personal. I truly meant “self-surrender to none but God.” How you choose to form your question or your attitude in prayer is up to you.

Personally, though, I don’t see what you have to loose in approaching God’s Holy Spirit. Individuals like you and me, and our respective churches can spar forever.

 

[Maccabees]

Juxtaposer:

Where are you getting this from?

The Bible.
Originally Posted by Maccabees
The church in the Bible spoke for Christ and declared doctrine for not only its members but to the angels in heaven. Now thats the power to bind and loose.
Read very slowly Ephesians 3:8-10
Matthew 16:18-19
Those verses contain all the elements of biblical support of a very unique church. This unique church is not found in nor claimed for in protestantism.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Maccabees:

The Bible.
Originally Posted by Maccabees
The church in the Bible spoke for Christ and declared doctrine for not only its members but to the angels in heaven. Now thats the power to bind and loose.
Read very slowly Ephesians 3:8-10
Matthew 16:18-19
Those verses contain all the elements of biblical support of a very unique church. This unique church is not found in nor claimed for in protestantism.

For some reason I thought you were talking about the OT Church.