Invisible/Visible Church

[Big_Chris]

Can someone please explain to me how invisible church ecclesiology is flawed?

Along this same line, please explain where in the NT the visible church is - well - visible?

Where in the NT is chrismation/confirmation demonstrated as leading to incorporation into the church?

 

[DavidFilmer]

When Catholics speak of a “visible” Church, we don’t mean that you can see it.

We mean a Church which has a divinely-established earthly authority. A “visible” Church (such as the Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church) has authority on earth. Somebody is in charge (somebody who is a Bishop and has valid Apostolic Succession). When a dispute arises over some matter, there is an authority that we can go to to get a definitive answer - which has been assured by Jesus to be true.

We can see the visible Church operating in this manner in the Book of Acts (chapter 15). The issue of circumcision was causing controversy - Jews entered the New Covenant after having passed through the Old Covenant. Could Gentiles just skip the Old Covenant (ie, circumcision - which is how Jews entered into the Covenant) and go straight to the new?

This is a reasonable question, and persuasive arguments can be made for either answer. In a visible Church, there is an earthly authority who can answer this question - and this answer is binding upon all members of the Church. The visible Church held a Council to make this decision (and the visible Church continues this practice today).

What you CANNOT find in the NT is any evidence of an “invisible” church. Paul, for example, clearly thinks of himself as in-charge of various churches. The Corinthians are not free to believe and practice any differently from the Galatians or the Romans. Simon, for example, was wrong in offering to pay Peter to ordain him (Acts 8:9-24), but he was not wrong in knowing that Peter had that authority.

Here is the account of that Council:
[bibledrb]Acts 15:1-35[/bibledrb]

 

[adf417]

Can someone please explain to me how invisible church ecclesiology is flawed?

Along this same line, please explain where in the NT the visible church is - well - visible?

My take on this is - as in any church there are members that are not complete compliance w/ it’s doctrine or beliefs. While the Catholic church members, who are not good standing with the church, are still considered Catholic and part of the church they are considered outside the “invisible church” (Protestant language) or not in full communion. I don’t think non-Catholics think of it this way. I think they view it as ALL Christians are within the body of Christ in the “invisible church” justifying any and all splits from the one body of Christ – the one true church.

Where in the NT is chrismation/confirmation demonstrated as leading to incorporation into the church?

I think this is what you are asking…
Acts 1:8, 2:1-4, 2:17-18

 

[JRKH]

Can someone please explain to me how invisible church ecclesiology is flawed?

Read Mt 18:15-18 and then explain how one “tells it to” and then “listens to” an invisible Church?
Following on with this…How can an “invisible church” have the authority to bind and loose “Whatever”?

Along this same line, please explain where in the NT the visible church is - well - visible?

Acts 15 contains a wonderful example of mt 18:15-18 in action. Those in Antioch knew where to go and who to ask.

Where in the NT is chrismation/confirmation demonstrated as leading to incorporation into the church?

This one I’ll have to leave to others.

Peace
James