Must the True Church be Always be clearly visible?

[CutlerB]

I’ve been unsettled a bit recently, concerning the perpetual visibility of the True Church, that is, the Church of Jesus Christ. By the term “perpetual visibility” I mean the impossibility of that Church being “hidden” among impostors but existent for a period of time, so as to “emerge” in a time after that of the Apostles, even up to our day.

Many groups would argue for such a case, including e.g. some Baptists, JWs, and probably many other splinter groups.

Is one right in saying that, assuming the Catholic Church is that True Church, even she remained “hidden” for some time when she was barely larger than the Apostles?

I’d be particularly glad if the posters could provide verses from Scripture, or a reasoned logical argument from a Scriptural principle etc., that would show that Christ’s Church would not be hidden among heresies, or outright impostors.

Thank you.

 

[bzkoss236]

I would argue that it is impossible to have a strictly invisible Church, because just as our personality is reflected in our visible actions, so would it be with the Church. Any visible body or community (even a body of one believer) could be considered part of the visible Church if they are visibly acting in a way that reflects the beliefs of the Church.

A strictly invisible Church would be a Church of hypocrites because they would be believers in mind, but non-believers in action.

Whenever someone reads the bible, or when people pray or worship together, they are acting out the beliefs of the Church and are therefore making visible the invisible of the Church.

Take the hierarchy for example:

If Christ is King, this indicates a hierarchy of the invisible Church. I would then argue that this hierarchy would then be made visible in the visible Church, which can be seen in just about any Christian church to some extent, with Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and the like having a more formal hierarchy, and I would argue most formally in the Catholic church (the institution), and informally in the more evangelical type churches.

My 2 cents on that

Now, in the general question you ask, I assume you are referring to the so-called “Trail of Blood”.

The issue with this is that if you look at the beliefs of the groups used in the “Trail of Blood” they don’t share the same doctrines and so they couldn’t have been the true Church. Nor could they really be said to be associated with one another. There are many serious Protestant historians who also comment on how ridiculous the idea of the “Trail of Blood” is. I remember watching a YouTube video of a Baptist historian who talks about how stupid the idea is, that it is a modern invention and attempt to validate someone’s ideas that does not match up against history.

 

[CutlerB]

I would argue that it is impossible to have a strictly invisible Church, because just as our personality is reflected in our visible actions, so would it be with the Church. Any visible body or community (even a body of one believer) could be considered part of the visible Church if they are visibly acting in a way that reflects the beliefs of the Church.

A strictly invisible Church would be a Church of hypocrites because they would be believers in mind, but non-believers in action.

Whenever someone reads the bible, or when people pray or worship together, they are acting out the beliefs of the Church and are therefore making visible the invisible of the Church.

Take the hierarchy for example:

If Christ is King, this indicates a hierarchy of the invisible Church. I would then argue that this hierarchy would then be made visible in the visible Church, which can be seen in just about any Christian church to some extent, with Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and the like having a more formal hierarchy, and I would argue most formally in the Catholic church (the institution), and informally in the more evangelical type churches.

My 2 cents on that

Now, in the general question you ask, I assume you are referring to the so-called “Trail of Blood”.

The issue with this is that if you look at the beliefs of the groups used in the “Trail of Blood” they don’t share the same doctrines and so they couldn’t have been the true Church. Nor could they really be said to be associated with one another. There are many serious Protestant historians who also comment on how ridiculous the idea of the “Trail of Blood” is. I remember watching a YouTube video of a Baptist historian who talks about how stupid the idea is, that it is a modern invention and attempt to validate someone’s ideas that does not match up against history.

I had the “Trail of Blood” in mind, but only its general idea, not any groups named. The point behind my question is really a claim that a friend of mine is making, who says: “The group Jesus founded doesn’t have to be continually visible. It has existed since then, but then came false teachers (Catholics, etc.) who vastly outnumbered them.”

 

[bzkoss236]

I had the “Trail of Blood” in mind, but only its general idea, not any groups named. The point behind my question is really a claim that a friend of mine is making, who says: “The group Jesus founded doesn’t have to be continually visible. It has existed since then, but then came false teachers (Catholics, etc.) who vastly outnumbered them.”

Ask him for historical proof of his claim

 

[CutlerB]

Ask him for historical proof of his claim

But exactly that is the problem! He’ll say: “I know, there isn’t any. That just shows how bad the situation was, but since Jesus’ followers would always be here [with this he doesn’t disagree] there must have been some.”

 

[bzkoss236]

But exactly that is the problem! He’ll say: “I know, there isn’t any. That just shows how bad the situation was, but since Jesus’ followers would always be here [with this he doesn’t disagree] there must have been some.”

Then he’s holding to unsubstantial claims and likely can’t be persuaded anyway and will deny any evidence you put forth to him.

 

[R_C]

Is one right in saying that, assuming the Catholic Church is that True Church, even she remained “hidden” for some time when she was barely larger than the Apostles?

The Church of Christ was not hidden for “some time” during the age of the apostles. On the very day of Pentecost (Acts 2) “Peter stepped forward with the eleven other apostles” and spoke in Jerusalem words that men of all tongues could understand, such that “there were added in that day about three thousand souls”. At once, in one day, the Church grew from a handful of men to thousands!

Wherever these holy men went, a multitude of great signs followed by the authority of Christ, such that hundreds and even thousands of men converted at once, after hearing them speak.

In one generation, they traveled most of the known world, ordaining fellow elders, presbyters, and deacons, such that the visible structure of that which was termed the Catholic Church was soon well defined. The New Testament bears witness to this.

By the second century the Church was clearly established in the entirety of the known world. There was no doubt as to who were the Christians. The Church Fathers bear witness to this, as they speak very clearly on these matters.

We even know of several pre-ecumenical councils: the Council of Jerusalem (c. 50), the Council of Rome (155), the Second Council of Rome (193), the Council of Ephesus (193), etc.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

I had the “Trail of Blood” in mind, but only its general idea, not any groups named. The point behind my question is really a claim that a friend of mine is making, who says: “The group Jesus founded doesn’t have to be continually visible. It has existed since then, but then came false teachers (Catholics, etc.) who vastly outnumbered them.”

Please read the Church Fathers, and attend Mass in the two thousand years you will see the same things, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when you read the Church Fathers you will also read the same things that are in the Catechism. Plus what the Church teaches.
May the Lord open your heart to hear, your eyes to see, your mind to believe.

 

[R_C]

@CutlerB your friend’s nonsene ultimately makes Christ a liar.

To begin with, let us recall that Paul speaks of the Church of the living God as the “pillar and foundation of the truth” in 1 Timothy 3:15.

In Matthew 16:18-19 Jesus says that He will build His Church. In Mathew 18 the Lord states:

If your brother sins…go and tell him…between you and him alone…If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you…if he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile

This already suffices to prove that the true, apostolic Church must be visible, authoritative, and perpetual. To the ancient law of the two witnesses, Christ adds a greater authority, that of the Church. This assumes that at all times in all places his disciples will be able to follow his word.

Scripture is clear that the Church has authority – in Mt 28:18-20 Jesus delegates His power to the apostles. The authority to perform specific acts is given in other passages – Jn 20:23 (the power to forgive sin), I Cor 11:23-24 (the power to offer sacrifice, the Eucharist), Lk 10:16 (the power to speak with Christ’s voice), Mt 18:18 (the power to legislate) and Mt 18:17 (the power to discipline).

From a perspective of pure common sense and logic, what would be the point of founding a Church (which Christ clearly wanted to do) without giving her authority? If the Church has no power, what what is she? She becomes a collection of believers with no power to enforce laws or discipline those who are dissident – anyone could claim to be a member of her even if they denied all the tenets of her laws and beliefs.

The Church is often described as bearing four “marks” - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. These have been incorporated into our Credo.

• the Church is unified, single and one. Whenever Jesus speaks of the Church (or uses a metaphor such as flock or His body) He speaks in the singular. Additionally, the Scripture tells us to avoid divisions of all sorts – Romans 15:5, 16:17, 1 Cor 1:10, Phil 2:2. Jesus prays that “all may be one” - Jn 17:17-23.Other verses which show the fact that the Church must be one are; John 10:16, 17:23, Ephesians 4:3-6, I Corinthians 12:13, Romans 12:5 and Colossians 3:15.
• if Jesus specifically founded something (as is shown above) and He intended it (or her) to have the authority to act in His place on Earth, how could it not be holy? The understanding of this mark is rooted on the fact that Jesus is married to the Church (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7, 21:2), on the teaching that marriage makes man and wife one flesh, and on the constant references in Scripture that the Church is Jesus’ Christ’s mystical body. The Church is therefore holy (although individual members of the Church are not impeccable).
• “Catholic” means both “universal” and “according to the wholeness”. Only one Church is not split into geographically local groups, instead found on every continent and in virtually every country in the world, having consistent theological teachings across all individual places of worship, holding on to the Deposit of Faith of Scripture and Tradition, whole and unchanged - and is constantly expanding (18 million new faithful were baptized between 2010 and 2011), gathering within herself the vast majority of all Christians (1.2 billion).
• Apostolic means that the Church claims genuine descent from the apostles who were selected and chosen by Jesus Christ. In John 15:16 we see that Jesus chose men to be His apostles and in John 20:21 He gave them a special mission. The book of Acts (the story of the early Church) is full of examples of men being appointed to the office of priest by other priests (this is apostolic succession) – Acts 1:20 and 1:25-26 are the first example of apostolic succession, but this is followed by Acts 14:23. Saint Paul speaks of the creation of priests – giving instructions to do it in Titus 1:5 and II Timothy 2:2, and giving instructions to not do it too readily in I Timothy 5:22 (this passage refers to the laying on of hands – I Timothy 4:14 makes it clear that this is the means by which the priesthood is to be passed on). The Catholic Church has a legitimate apostolic succession (with over 5,000 bishops, 500,000 priests, 40,000 deacons).

Logic tells us that the Church which has authority, is visible, is apostolic and which was founded specifically by God as the ordinary means of salvation has to be **perpetual **– would God create a Church which had all these characteristics which would only last for a few years or centuries?

Once again, both logic and Scripture show that the Church must be infallible in matters of religious teaching – if the Church must be perpetual, then she has to never teach something wrong. If this weren’t the case, then Christ’s promise that the Church would be perpetual would be incorrect. John 16:13 says that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth, and John 14:26 once again reaffirms this. The Church will “speak with Christ’s own voice” according to Luke 10:16 and the apostles speak with the voice of the Holy Spirit in Acts 15:28.

When it is shown that the Church must possess the four marks she does, that she possess authority, and that she is perpetual, it is completely necessary for her to be visible and identifiable! How else would people be able to find the Church if she were invisible?

St. Augustine in fact clearly states:

[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. …] last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.

 

[bzkoss236]

You could have him read the Didache, of which both secular and religious historians put a date around 70-100 AD (aka. about 35-65 years after Christ’s death and resurrection) which talks about how to perform Baptisms, the Eucharist, and Confession, and mentions other things if I remember correctly. The actual title of the manuscript translates to something like “The Works of the Apostles”. So, if he believes in a solely symbolic Eucharist, then he is wrong because the earliest Christians didn’t believe that, unless he feels that the “true Church” went underground so shortly after Christ ascended. Which, if such were to have happened, I feel that would lower Christ’s credibility and would make the Apostles bad teachers. He would also have no reason to hold to the NT Canon that he does, if not the whole Bible; nor could he hold to the doctrine of the Trinity as it is defined.

 

[CutlerB]

You could have him read the Didache, of which both secular and religious historians put a date around 70-100 AD (aka. about 35-65 years after Christ’s death and resurrection) which talks about how to perform Baptisms, the Eucharist, and Confession, and mentions other things if I remember correctly. The actual title of the manuscript translates to something like “The Works of the Apostles”. So, if he believes in a solely symbolic Eucharist, then he is wrong because the earliest Christians didn’t believe that, unless he feels that the “true Church” went underground so shortly after Christ ascended. Which, if such were to have happened, I feel that would lower Christ’s credibility and would make the Apostles bad teachers. He would also have no reason to hold to the NT Canon that he does, if not the whole Bible; nor could he hold to the doctrine of the Trinity as it is defined.

Well, he doesn’t really care what the ECFs say, unless they say something that supposedly supports his beliefs. Usually they are then misquoted. If they disagree with him, they’re “fake Christians”. He believes “the Lord’s evening meal” to be purely symbolic. Neither does he believe in the Trinity. As for the Bible, the claim is “the early Christians agreed on the canon”.

 

[Nita]

I would ask him to tell you just which years the Church was “invisible”. Then you have something specific to start with. Shouldn’t be a problem at all to find some ECF writings to show him. It is those writings that make the Church “visible” - just as Scripture makes the Church at the time of the apostles “visible”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I had the “Trail of Blood” in mind, but only its general idea, not any groups named. The point behind my question is really a claim that a friend of mine is making, who says: “The group Jesus founded doesn’t have to be continually visible. It has existed since then, but then came false teachers (Catholics, etc.) who vastly outnumbered them.”

So, hell did prevail against the true Church?

:nope:

Losing the Trail or The Trail of Lies
A Catholic Response to the “Trail of Blood”
By Matthew A. C. Newsome
turrisfortis.com/trail.html

 

[R_C]

Well, he doesn’t really care what the ECFs say, unless they say something that supposedly supports his beliefs. Usually they are then misquoted. If they disagree with him, they’re “fake Christians”. He believes “the Lord’s evening meal” to be purely symbolic. Neither does he believe in the Trinity. As for the Bible, the claim is “the early Christians agreed on the canon”.

Well, educating the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy. The more we learn about our sacred faith and our Holy Church, the better we become at doing so.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve been unsettled a bit recently, concerning the perpetual visibility of the True Church, that is, the Church of Jesus Christ. By the term “perpetual visibility” I mean the impossibility of that Church being “hidden” among impostors but existent for a period of time, so as to “emerge” in a time after that of the Apostles, even up to our day.

Many groups would argue for such a case, including e.g. some Baptists, JWs, and probably many other splinter groups.

Is one right in saying that, assuming the Catholic Church is that True Church, even she remained “hidden” for some time when she was barely larger than the Apostles?

I’d be particularly glad if the posters could provide verses from Scripture, or a reasoned logical argument from a Scriptural principle etc., that would show that Christ’s Church would not be hidden among heresies, or outright impostors.

Thank you.

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

 

[CutlerB]

So, hell did prevail against the true Church?

:nope:

Losing the Trail or The Trail of Lies
A Catholic Response to the “Trail of Blood”
By Matthew A. C. Newsome
turrisfortis.com/trail.html

Well, he would say they didn’t, since the visible “true church” was underground, but always existent.

Perhaps I should ask for clarification about what you mean by “visible”?

Well, educating the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy. The more we learn about our sacred faith and our Holy Church, the better we become at doing so.

Exactly. After all such discussions brought me to Holy Church in the first place!

Jesus founded a visible Church
Adapted from “The Necessity of Being Catholic”
by James Akin
chnetwork.org/journals/nesschurch/ness_7.htm

The Church Jesus Christ founded is a visible communion. This is proven in Matthew 16:17-19, the passage in which Christ promised the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church (meaning that it would always exist). Several factors in the text show he was talking about a visible communion.

First, Jesus made Peter head of this Church (Matt. 16:18), yet Jesus was certainly not making Peter the head of an invisible Church. It is Christ’s own prerogative to be head of the invisible communion of Christians stretching from heaven to earth (Eph. 5:23). Therefore, he must have made Peter the head of a visible, earthly church. (We will not argue here that Jesus made Peter the head; even if one disagrees, the remaining arguments prove our case.)

Second, Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19), which are for use in Church government (compare Isa. 22:22 – the only Old Testament parallel to this verse). But one cannot govern an invisible communion of believers, only a visible one.

Third, Jesus gave Peter the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 16:19), which Matthew 18:17-18 indicates is used in Church discipline. But one cannot exercise Church discipline over an invisible body. Indeed, Matt. 18:17-18 refers it to public excommunication, in which an individual is treated by the church as “a gentile or a tax collector” (that is, as an unbeliever).

Fourth, Jesus explicitly stated that Peter would exercise the power of binding and loosing on earth. This shows his authority is an earthly one, over an earthly Church.

Fifth, Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18), meaning that it would never perish. But it would be ridiculous to promise that an invisible Church would not pass out of existence since some of the Church’s members are in heaven and Christ’s heavenly Church cannot pass away by its very nature. Only a visible, earthly communion needs a promise that it will never perish.

There are thus abundant reasons to conclude that the Church Jesus was discussing in Matthew 16:17-19 was a visible communion of believers, and, since only the Catholic Church goes back that far, only it can be the one Christ founded.

The link doesn’t seem to work.

Assuming I understand you correctly, the person I am talking to wouldn’t disagree. He’d simply say: “Yes, the true Christians were visible and organised, but underground for about 1850 years.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Assuming I understand you correctly, the person I am talking to wouldn’t disagree. He’d simply say: “Yes, the true Christians were visible and organised, but underground for about 1850 years.”

How did this underground church provide light to the world?

Matthew 5
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

And how did this church which no one seems to have heard of fulfill the great commission?

Matthew 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The link doesn’t seem to work.

cin.org/users/james/files/necessit.htm

 

[CutlerB]

How did this underground church provide light to the world?

Matthew 5
14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

And how did this church which no one seems to have heard of fulfill the great commission?

Matthew 28
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

I brought up Matthew 5:14, which he says he thinks he has an answer to. My friend is arguing from Matthew 13:24-30, interpreting it to mean the True Church would be hidden among false Christians, but I have opened a thread on this question specifically.

I suppose it’s going to be something like “We were just very small, but even a small light is a light, and now we’ve become big”.

cin.org/users/james/files/necessit.htm

That one works, thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I brought up Matthew 5:14, which he says he thinks he has an answer to. My friend is arguing from Matthew 13:24-30, interpreting it to mean the True Church would be hidden among false Christians, but I have opened a thread on this question specifically.

Then he does not know the scriptures very well, because Jesus explained this parable in detail.

Matthew 13
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Your friend says that the field is the church filled with true Christians (good seed) and false Christians (bad seed).

Jesus says that the field is the WORLD filled with believers or “sons of the kingdom” (good seed) as well “sons of the evil one” or non-believers (bad seed).

At best, we can say your friend and his little band of brothers are like the man who buried his talent in the ground and returned it to his master with no interest for they have accomplished little to nothing for the kingdom in the past 1850 years.

The world certainly hasn’t seen much light from them, has it? :nope: