Protestants: how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the right one?

[christian1]

alwaysforhim: Was He speaking symbolically here? When did Jesus give His flesh for the life of the world? On the cross, right? So, is Jesus speaking symbolically here in verse 51? Is He telling us to eat His symbolic flesh that He will give for the life of the world? If that’s your interpretation, then Jesus only gave His symbolic flesh for us on the cross, not His real flesh…according to your interpretation.

Do you realize that the same could be said of God in the Old Testament who used symbols to remember many important events?

Did he dimminish the importance of such events by using symbols? I’m simply doing the same thing. The teaching that was hard was the fact that his body was the sacrifice. The other part of the teaching that was hard was some thinking he meant they would literally have to eat his flesh and drink His blood. That indeed is a disturbing idea and hard to accept. It is scripturally sound to assume the bread and wine was symbolic and that they did indeed represent the REAL DEAL. But represent is the key word. Just like it always was. He had many hard sayings that were hard to hear unless you had ears to hear and many would go away offended because they lacked understanding.

The people believed that the Christ would live forever. This eating his flesh and drinking his blood and him being lifted up, just wasn’t adding up and was indeed hard to hear.

When Jesus said: Mar 14:25 Truly I say to you, I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.

Now what? Now he’s calling it the fruit of the vine again. Could it possibly just been symbolic? And why do you take away the power of God if He should so choose to use symbolism in this as He did many times in the Old testament???

 

[josie_L]

He obviously didn’t need it, but He wants us to emulate Him. And that includes by being baptized.

Exactly.

 

[christian1]

Wayneleyds: 1 shouldnt find similarities in our actions with pagans but should seek to see to whom we give praise!!jesus Christ!!and our lady in her aparations does not preach a different jesus or another gospel but pleads with human kind to listen to her son.and to give us his messages.

Did you miss the scriptures I quoted about Mary?

Could you give me some feedback on that?

Because truthfully, I believe the majority of the catholic church has fallen into maryworship and is in denial about it.

It all started when you proclaimed her queen of Heaven when nowhere’s does it indicate any such thing about her. And when you made her evervirgin when the scriptures clearly teach, she wasn’t. And when you delcared her assumed into heaven without dying.

Did you forget that, that’s where you go when you die in Christ??? So pointing to the revelations scripture of her being in heaven, therefore, she must have ascended, is unbiblical. For that is where we go when our bodies die.

 

[christian1]

When you create an entire doctrine and make it dogma around a certain individual in scripture and it’s not biblically true, you are indeed teaching error.

The devil love error such as this. People want to worship mary, and do. That is why they want to vote her as co-redemptrix.

Slowly but surely, the son becomes less and less and the mother more and more, when it should be the other way around.

If she should appear truthfully, I would imagine she might stop encouraging people to pray to her not feeding that idolatrous spirit in them.

The catholic church is…enormous. And yet straight and narrow is the way and FEW there be that find it.

Revelation talks about the seven churches. It talks about them as though THEY ARE THE CHURCHES. And six out of seven were defiled.

Don’t you think, you guys better start looking to see…where your religion is being defiled?

It’s not the protestants, becasue were already damned and rebelled, we are not even considered PART of the church. That leaves ONLY YOU. Will you listen to what Christ is saying to your churches???

 

[Always_For_Him]

The Church has not “fallen into Mary worship.” Some people may SEEM to do that, some may even do that, but it IS NOT approved by the Church to worship Mary. We Worship God!

The Bible never places Mary in opposition to Jesus, nor does the Catholic Church. The Bible is very clear that we are to show Mary special honor. When we honor Mary, we honor Jesus who gave Mary her privileges.

There is a difference in the development of doctrine (which is valid) from the change of doctrine (which is corruption.) We are constatnly gaining deeper insight to our beliefs. We also believe that the early Church gained deeper insight into the doctrines of the Trinity and the person of Christ. The Church will always, until the end of time, grow in its understanding of the Deposit of Faith. Although the Deposit of Faith was completed at the end of the apostolic age, our understanding of it will grow until the end of time. This development of doctrine applies to Marian beliefs just as it does to the rest of our faith.

Some Marian beliefs depend for their fullness on Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is just ONE part of Jesus’ Deposit of Faith.

Most non-C’s don’t believe in Sacred Tradition, but in their own tradition of Sola Scriptura. When you read the Bible through the lens of Sola Scriptura combined with generations of teaching that is NOT apostolic, you will not be able to come to know the Truth, just your own/your church’s interpretation of our NT writings.

If you have deep-seated antipathy to our Marian doctrines, it will be very difficult for you to believe anything we are trying to explain to you.

Most non-C’s believe in the Trinity, the canon of the Bible, and the death of the last Apostle closing the Deposit of Faith - these CANNOT be found explicitly in the Bible. These come from the Church’s gaining deeper understanding OVER TIME.

The three main reformers: Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli ALL believed in the Marian doctrines.

If you are basing your belief that she wasn’t ever virgin on the fact that the word “brother” is used in connection to Jesus, “brother”, is used in MANY ways to indicate sibling, relative, friend, or associate. We know what the actual context is when these words are used by Sacred Tradition. The Aposltes WALKED with Mary. They knew and taught their successors. NOT everything is written in the NT. The ECF’s defended Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. If you connect that to the OT prefiguring of Mary as the Ark of the Covenant, you will see that Mary HAD to be without stain or defect because she was to carry the Living Word of God.

Here is what Luther, Calvin and Zwingli had to say to defend Mary as Ever-Virgin:

Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe came from from a womb left perfectly intact.” (Words of Luther, Vol. 11, pp. 319-320; Vol. 6, p. 510)

Calvin: “There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not with to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published in 1562)

Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin, brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth FOREVER REMAINED A PURE, INTACT VIRGIN.” (Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1. p. 424)

 

[DavidCatechumen]

Please, please, read 2 Thess. 2:15.: Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

**ARE YOU FOR REAL??? DONT YOU THINK I HAVE? DON’T YOU SEE??? **

That’s what I’m doing by obeying the traditions taught and oral statements of the letters of the first apostles!!! And that is STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU???

Obviously you are not obeying the oral tradition of the Apostles, seeing as you have a problem with the Blessed Mother and the disciples of the Apostles did not.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Explicit teaching by the Church Fathers on the Assumption begins toward the end of the age of the Fathers. Earlier, many apocryphal writings deal with the Assumption. Although these writings are not inspired, it would be a mistake to discount their value altogether. They come from the early centuries of Christianity and REFLECT ideas popular at the time.

These apocryphal documents describe Mary’s transition (Assumption) from earth to heaven. The Falling Asleep of Mary comes from around the fourth century. …the apostles carried the couch, and laid down her [Mary’s] precious and holy body in Gethsemane in a new tomb. And behold, a perfume of sweet savour came forth out of the sepulcher of our Lady and mother of God; and for three days the voices of invisible angels were heard glorifying Christ our God, who had been born of her. And when the third day was ended, the voices were no longer heard; and from that time forth all knew that her spotless and precious body had been transferred to paradise.

St. Gregory of Tours wrote about it in 575-593. St. John Demascene who died in 749 writes about it.

All three Reformers believed it and took it with them through the Reformation. Why has this been purged from Protestant teaching in the last 500 years?

 

[DavidCatechumen]

It’s not the protestants, becasue were already damned and rebelled, we are not even considered PART of the church. That leaves ONLY YOU [Catholics]. Will you listen to what Christ is saying to your churches???

What about the Orthodox?

So it is not ONLY US Catholics as you claim.

THIS IS NOT SOLA SCRIPTURA!!!

You admitted that your position is not Biblical. Good! This is progress.

But please inform yourself better if you want to carry on this discussion. It makes it much harder for us if you don’t cite Scripture.

 

[jlhargus]

Our Lady at Fatima

With the Hail Mary we invite Her to pray for us. Our Lady always grants our request. She joins Her prayer to ours. Therefore it becomes ever more useful, because what Mary asks She always receives, Jesus can never say no to whatever His Mother asks for

some of the promises of the rosary:

Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces.

I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.

The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.

I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.

The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven

You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.

All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities

…now, to anybody who adhere’s to the word of God has a real problem with stuff like this. You asked for proof, here it is. What in God’s name are we to do with this kind of stuff?

JL: I adhere to the whole word of God and I have no problem with these promises. Except your first one, it is not **powerful graces **but signal graces. The promises for saying the rosary are a private revelation and are not part of public revelation given by Our Lord to the apostles. They are not necessary for salvation. Only that revealed by Christ, before his ascension, to the apostles is part of the deposit of faith. That gospel alone the Church teaches is all one must believe for salvation. As a Catholic I am not bound to believe or follow private revelation given to any individual, even if it is given by our Lord, and declared worth of belief by the Church. I do not have to accept it.

I do however believe and follow the Fatima revelation and some others, in fact I am convinced my conversion to the Catholic faith was brought about by Our Lady of Fatima. I do accept the promises also. I was saying the rosary eight months before I ever spoke to a priest or any Catholic about becoming Catholic. Devotionals are not doctrines. Here is a link that give all fifteen promises. themostholyrosary.com/15promises.htm

 

[josie_L]

To Davidcatechumen
you said: Revelation 2-3 are warnings to the churches to repent of sin. The lampstands being extinguished is the loss of the grace of God (i.e. mortal sin) and thus, loss of the Holy Spirit. This is further evidence for the Catholic/Orthodox soteriology and against the Protestant understanding of “say the sinner’s prayer and you are eternally secure.”

This is NOT a broad protestant view. My view is biblical. The bible is plain if you read it carefully searching not to fulfill your own lusts. It’s faith with works plain as day.

you said: The Church has always consisted of sinners and saints, so I do not see how this is evidence against the catholicity and authority of the Church.

**because MEN, just as it has always been, are appointed in authority. And as you admitted of past popes and priests, they are susceptable to sin. In matters of doctrine as well. **You have no scripture to prove that he cannot teach error. **** If you try and say that error cannot be taught in the body of Christ, then why for crying out loud did Christ and his disciples spend so much time warning us of such things???

Jesus promised that he would lead his apostles into all truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But this promise was specifically directed to the apostles, that is why when we say the Nicene creed we state "I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic (not everyone in the body of Christ) church. Therefore that very Church which has apostolic roots, is the one, holy and Catholic Church that will be preserved from all error. The first Pope was such an apostle, and as such when Jesus spoke to him and the other 10 he meant what he meant, all truth means no error for the apostles and their successors.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Catholics worship God alone. We do not mistake a creature - even God’s greatest creater - for the Creator. We HONOR Mary. Why? Because of the gifts that God has given her. By making her His mother, God honored Mary more than we ever could. Scripture calls Mary “blessed” and promiss that ALL generations will do likewise (Luke 1:42, 48). We honor Mary because Jesus honored her (perfectly obeying the 4th commandment) and we are called to imitate Christ.

ALL prayer has God as its object. When we “pray to Mary” as you say, we are really praying TO God THROUGH Mary. We are asking Mary to intercede and present our petitions to God. Recall how Solomon promised not to refuse any request of Bathsheba, the Queen Mother (1 Kings 2:19-20). Nor will the King of kings refuse the petition of His Queen Mother, just as he did not refuse her request at the wedding feast of Cana (John 2).

Mary’s intercession is completely subordinate to, and dependent upon Jesus’ intercession. In 1 Timothy 2:1-8, St. Paul COMMANDS Christians to intercede for one another. This doesn’t go around Christ’s mediation, but rather through it. Becuase Jesus is the one mediator between earth and heaven, we as members of Christ’s body are able to cooperate with Him as mediators. We single out Mary’s intercession because she is God’s most righteous saing and “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16). I know this brings up the non belief in intercessory prayer for you, but for that I am sorry. It was practiced by the Apostles, they spoke about it. It is is the catacombs from the first century. The ECF’s wrote about it. Your church somehow didn’t take that teaching that came through the Reformation, so you have never been exposed to it.

When the Catholic Church defines a doctrine, she is merely codifying a belief that HAS ALWAYS existed in the Church. She did this in 325 when she defined the doctrine of the Trinity and in 382 when she determined the canon of the Bible. But, no Christian thinks that she 'invented" the Trinity or the Bible when she defined them. Likewise, the Immaculate Conception, Mary Ever-Virgin, and the Assumption belong the the Deposit of Faith. They are taught implicitly through OT typology and explicitly by the ECF’s.

Scripture does not record the Assumption of Mary, so we depend on APOSTOLIC TRADITION for our belief. However, the Assumption is NOT anti-scriptural. In fact, Scripture gives every indication that such a think could occur. Consider the unusual ends of certain righteous people: Enoch was taken to heaven without dying (Heb 11:5); and Elijah was whisked into heaven by a fiery chariot (2 King 2;11). Matthew 27:52 suggests a bodily assumption before the Second Coming and many Protestants believe in the “rapture” based on 1 Thess 4:17 and 1 Cor 15:52. Mary is simply the first to be “raptured.”

 

[jlhargus]

Except that since Jesus is not the one who is holding the bread and saying “This is My Body” at your Protestant service, whoever is doing that needs authority to perform this act on behalf of God.

And this, only your catholic Church can give. God does not go out of that boundary.

JL: No not just Catholic, but all those who have apostolic secession, those ordained by laying on of hands from one of the apostles to bishop to bishop to the present and will continue to the end. All the Orthodox Churches, the Coptic Churches in Egypt and Ethiopia, the Church of the East.

[2 TIM 1:6 …stir up the GIFT OF GOD IN YOU BY THE PUTTING ON OF MY HANDS 7 GOD HAS GIVEN US the SPIRIT OF POWER. Titus 1:5 For this I left you in Crete that you should set in order …and ORDAIN ELDERS in EVERY CITY AS I APPOINTED YOU. ACTS 14:23 when they had ORDAINED elders IN EVERY CHURCH and prayed with fasting they commended them to the Lord on whom they believed. ACTS 20:28 Take heed of yourself, and the flock over which the HOLY SPIRIT has MADE you OVERSEERS TO FEED THE CHURCH OF GOD purchased with his own blood, 1 TIM 5:17 Let the elders that RULE well be counted worthy of DOUBLE HONOUR especially they who labour in the WORD AND DOCTRINE.

1 Tin 4:13 Till I come attend to READING to EXHORTATION to DOCTRINE 14 Do not neglect THE GIFT in you GIVEN you by prophecy WITH THE LAYING ON OF the HANDS of the presbytery 16 TAKE HEED to yourself TO THE DOCTRINE continue in them for in doing this you shalt both SAVE yourself and THOSE WHO HEAR YOU.] I cannot find a VALID minister in the New Covenant who was not appointed and SENT directly by Christ including Paul, or SENT by laying on of hands in the apostolic line, either by an apostle or one they ordained.

Scripture indicates, to be a valid minister one must be SENT, [Rm 10:14 …how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 how shall they preach EXCEPT THEY BE SENT? Lk 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that HE went out into a mountain to pray, and CONTINUED ALL NIGHT IN PRAYER to God. 13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and OF THEM HE CHOSE TWELVE, whom also he NAMED APOSTLES; JN 17:18 As you have SENT me into the world I also SENT them into the world 20 I do not pray for these alone but for those who will BELIEVE IN ME THROUGH THEIR WORD 21 THAT THEY ALL MY BE ONE as you Father are in me and I in you THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE you SENT ME.]

 

[elvisman]

you of all people should have no problem with symbolism. The bread we use and the grap juice we drink, we believe are symbolic of the real flesh and the real blood of Christ. We are not dellusional to think they are the literal thing that we are putting into our mouths, just as it wasn’t at the last supper. He used literal bread and literal wine, as a symbol of his flesh and blood as well. Was He wrong?

Are you serious or did you just hear about the Real Presence this morning for the first time?
Would you have preferred that Jesus told the Apostles to take a bite out of him instead? Jesus used the bread and wine at the Last Supper whereby it was transubstantiated to his Flesh and Blood.
**Your reaction is just like those who left him in John 6:66. **
They couldn’t handle it either.

The following is a clear-cut example of the faith that you lack, my friend (in blue):
John 6:52-66:
**The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, *“How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?” ***
**Jesus said to them, *"*Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. **
***Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. ***
***For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. ***
***Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. ***
***Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. ***
**This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." **
**These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. **
**Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?" **
**Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, *“Does this shock you? ***
***What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? ***
***It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. ***
**But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. **
**And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." **
**As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. **

 

[Syele]

Can I just add my :twocents: to this “denominations” argument?

I am glad you did, Its refreshing to see the real issue brought up instead of canned responses from apologetics sites Please forgive my answering your points all out of order, If I accidentally messed up your meaning please let me know.

The entire Catholic argument about the problem with the vast numbers of non-Catholic “denominations” is an attempt to somehow appeal to the problem of Christian disunity that exists among all non-Catholic groups

. As a Catholic, it doesn’t matter if there are 1 million protestant denominations, or just 1.

oh but it does! Because you are completely right that there should not be disunity among Christians and you and I are both Christians. If you begin with the attitude that “There is no hope there are too many protestants to understand them all they are all just doing whatever!” Then we have no ground to even begin rational discourse. In fact, I think most of us protestants agree that disunity is bad! If this issue was deemed more important than all the others, there there would be no division, but its not seen as the #1 priority and probably shouldn’t be.

The agreement that disunity is bad is the very reason that there are “non-denominational” churches. & “inter-denominational” churches, they are putting unity above other teachings. Trying to make everyone fit. More and more Churches are dropping their denominational names from churches so that they show less division. I personally find this trend to be upsetting.

Any Christian group who have, within their body of teaching, a different set of beliefs and practices regarding faith and morals, from another Christian group. Faith, in this context, means salvific doctrine and worship practices (i.e. baptism, and male-only priesthood). Morals, means arbitration on determining the sinful nature of any and all human actions (i.e. contraception, abortion, etc).

I would concede that this is a fair definition, bbut I not entirely sold on the idea that it needs to be defined at all.

As an aside, this definition also highlights the fact that there is no such thing as a non-denominational church, no matter how much the people of that church want to claim it.

I dont believe that non-denominational churches really maen to say that they do not have a set of doctrines and morals. That, natually, would be just plain silly. in Fact they are agreeing with you, an ally to your argument so to speak… They agree that disunity is VERY VERY bad. They just dont go about preaching Christian Unity in the same way Catholics do.

Some Catholics erroneously claim that every church that is not Catholic is, in and of itself, a denomination. To me, this is speculative and too broad a generalization, and probably untrue. …
So, how do we count these denominations? …
do you teach something different from another group regarding…

what is required for salvation
what is immoral in God’s eyes

I think the real problem is that people are focused on counting the denominations at all. It serves no purpose because we already agree for the most part that disunity is not good. What we disagree on is the way to solve the problem. And we can never have useful discussion if the conversations starts off with exaggerations & untruths, It may not matter to you if there are 300 ir 3 million, but it makes a difference to the people in them.

Consider the anti-Catholics who post wild accusations against Catholics, they made people rather upset to read them cause you are thinking “WOW that is untrue and mean!” When usually it’s not so much an “attack” but a full out misunderstanding of what Catholics really believe, and often its cause is rooted in terminology. If they approached the same topics more carefully, it would be the difference between a Ban from CAF and a fruitful discussion. In the same way, Im happy to start discussions on unity in the Church, But not so happy to to ignore lies/extreme exaggerationa for the benefit of the discussion.

Finally, one of the big reasons Catholics don’t think non-Catholic churches are authentic is not just because we believe the Catholic Church is the only one verifiably linked back directly to the apostles and subsequently the early Church, and not only because The Church has no variance in teaching the above concepts…but also because no non-Catholic church has any regulating body to discern and arbitrate matters of Christian morality. This is also (even more so) true of the non-Catholic notion that “church” is limited to an invisible body of believers.

I still maintain that very few Catholics grasp the Invisible church term because your own Catechism describes the invisible church in a few places, you just dont use that** term** Its the Invisible to the exclusion of the visible you disagree with I would guess.

Bottomline, there are to be no denominations. The concept of “denomination” ceases to exist as soon as you have full unity of teaching. Even 2 churches on earth is 1 too many. Somehow, we all have to find a way to find, and enter into, ONE Church.

True there are too many and even 2 is one too many. It is not a matter of getting people to agree that disunity is bad, it is in getting them to agree on the solution to the problem. I can think of many very bad solutions, some pretty bad ones, and some ones that would be nice but would would take a miracle from God. But I cant think of a single one that would start with a firm count of the actual number of Christian Denominations.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

David,

Welcome Home! I can not stop laughing at your terminology. You have made my weekend. God bless you on your journey. The Easter Vigil is most beautiful and I will be praying for you. It is very apparent that you have done a great deal of work to understand the Catholic faith. I think I will ever be impacted by you and the thought of Paul blowing his nose.

Peace, Graubo

Graubo,

I totally missed your message in the sola scriptura sandstorm.

Thank you for your encouragement and prayers!

 

[DavidCatechumen]

I still maintain that very few Catholics grasp the Invisible church term because your own Catechism describes the invisible church in a few places, you just dont use that** term** Its the Invisible to the exclusion of the visible you disagree with I would guess.

Actually, the Catholic teaching is that the Church is visible. Same as for the past 2000 years.

However, the salvific elements of the Church can cross the visible boundaries of the Church.

Here’s the Catechism. Check 817-819 on this point.

 

[Syele]

However, the salvific elements of the Church can cross the visible boundaries of the Church.

Ive read it… The “invisible Church” is all of those who will eventually be in Heaven, regardless of their affiliations on Earth. If anyone in your beliefs are saved that are not in the current Visible Catholic Church, then they are part of the invisible Church weather you like the term or not. I have always believed that there is BOTH a visible and an invisible one. To say there is no invisible church would be to say that absolutely everyone who is saved is in a particular visible Church AND that ALL of those in the Visible Church will join Jesus in Heaven. I know that the Catholic Church does not believe that only Catholics can be saved and that all Catholics are saved. Therefore your Church has Visible and invisible, just like mine. You just dont have a term for it that I can locate,. unless you count various paragraph numbers in the Catechism

 

[DavidCatechumen]

To say there is no invisible church would be to say that absolutely everyone who is saved is in a particular visible Church AND that ALL of those in the Visible Church will join Jesus in Heaven.

Actually, that is the Catholic teaching.

I know that the Catholic Church does not believe that only Catholics can be saved and that all Catholics are saved.

Right, the Church does not teach either of those points.

Baptismal grace is what makes someone part of the Church. (CCC 818, 838). You can be (imperfectly) part of the Catholic Church without realizing it (like every Protestant with a valid baptism and no mortal sin), and likewise, someone can believe they are part of the Church when they are actually in mortal sin and have lost their baptismal grace.

 

[Syele]

Actually, that is the Catholic teaching.

Right, the Church does not teach either of those points.

Baptismal grace is what makes someone part of the Church. (CCC 818, 838). You can be (imperfectly) part of the Catholic Church without realizing it (like every Protestant with a valid baptism and no mortal sin), and likewise, someone can believe they are part of the Church when they are actually in mortal sin and have lost their baptismal grace.

every Protestant with a valid baptism and no mortal sin = People in the invisible Church but not part of the visible Catholic Church… there for both exist… even if you call it something else like, separated brethren or imperfect union or something. Its just different terminology.

 

[DavidCatechumen]

every Protestant with a valid baptism and no mortal sin = People in the invisible Church but not part of the visible Catholic Church… there for both exist… even if you call it something else like, separated brethren or imperfect union or something. Its just different terminology.

No, this is a distinction WITH a difference.

The concept of an invisible church is an excuse to have 367,483+ different Protestant denominations who don’t agree about anything, who may or may not be teaching the truth, and have no power to feed the hungry or hold the government accountable for immoral laws due to their divisions. But that’s okay, goes the logic, because they’re part of the one “TRUE” church, which is invisible, and so Jesus is not bigamous for having hundreds of thousands of churches all claiming to be His Bride. (Cf. Eph. 5:23–32)…

Not only is this unworkable, it’s also not Biblical.

Only, conduct yourselves in a way worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear news of you, that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents. This is proof to them of destruction, but of your salvation. And this is God’s doing.

Phil 1:27-28. If we had one mind, these forums would be pretty boring, wouldn’t they? But that is the call of Scripture. There is one Faith, handed down once for all from the Apostles. Jude 1:3. Only one Church can teach that one Faith and share in one mind. Not three hundred thousand churches.

So the Catholic Church teaches that there is one visible Church, which subsists in her, but which has sanctifying elements which can be found outside the visible boundaries of the Church; these elements are a call to unity. (Have you read Lumen Gentium?)

P.S. 367,483+ is a guess, but it feels about right. :nope: