(SPLIT & MERGED) Do Protestants hold to a different definition of "church"?

[JonNC]

No. You are a Catholic when you embrace all that the Vicar of Christ has professed and proclaimed for 2000 years.

That’s the definition of only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Church Catholic is not made up only and exclusive of them.

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

That’s the definition of only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Church Catholic is not made up only and exclusive of them.

Jon

There are also those who are imperfectly and invisibly joined to the Church, who are not aware (to various degrees) that it exists.

But there is no such thing as an “invisible Catholic Church” to which anyone can claim membership, if they aren’t in visible communion with Rome.

 

[JonNC]

There are also those who are imperfectly and invisibly joined to the Church, who are not aware (to various degrees) that it exists.

But there is no such thing as an “invisible Catholic Church” to which anyone can claim membership, if they aren’t in visible communion with Rome.

My understanding of the invisible has more to do with “wheat and tares”, etc. the visible Church is where one finds the congression of believers (saints) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The visible Church is more than one institution.

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

My understanding of the invisible has more to do with “wheat and tares”, etc. the visible Church is where one finds the congression of believers (saints) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The visible Church is more than one institution.

Jon

The invisible church or church invisible is a **theological concept **of an “invisible” body of the elect who are known only to God,
in contrast to the "visible church"—that is, the institutional body on earth which preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments.

Every member of the invisible church is saved,
while the visible church contains some individuals who are saved and others who are unsaved. -wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church

 

[guanophore]

The invisible church or church invisible is a **theological concept **of an “invisible” body of the elect who are known only to God,
in contrast to the "visible church"—that is, the institutional body on earth which preaches the gospel and administers the sacraments.

Every member of the invisible church is saved,
while the visible church contains some individuals who are saved and others who are unsaved. -wiki
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_church

Wiki cannot be considered a credible source on this matter. Can’t you provide an authorative theological source?

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the definition of only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome. The Church Catholic is not made up only and exclusive of them.

Jon

Let me ask you this question, Jon.

Let’s say there’s a church led by a Lutheran pastor that has broken off from your church. They call themselves “Full Gospel Lutheran Evangelicals” (or something like that. The name is irrelevant).

They believe lots of the same things you believe, but they also profess that Mary is part of the Godhead, that the Pauline epistles are satanic and that women are inferior to men, according to the Bible.

Would you endorse their use of the title “Lutheran” in their name?

NB: I am not making any statement about Lutheran theology being satanic or references to its Mariology, or any putative antifeminism. Simply take the example I provided on its own merit.

 

[jmcrae]

My understanding of the invisible has more to do with “wheat and tares”, etc. the visible Church is where one finds the congression of believers (saints) where the word is preached and the sacraments administered. The visible Church is more than one institution.

Jon

Martin Luther would have vehemently disagreed with this idea.

 

[guanophore]

Martin Luther would have vehemently disagreed with this idea.

This is one of the reasons that Lutheranism is not based on the writings and sentiments of Luther. Some of his ideas were grafted into the Augsburg Confession, but there are many of his ideas that are not adopted by Lutherans.

 

[JonNC]

Martin Luther would have vehemently disagreed with this idea.

Maybe, but the Augsburg Confession says the following:

Article VII: Of the Church.

1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.

Article VIII: What the Church Is.

1] Although the Church properly is the congregation of saints and true believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ: The Scribes and 2] the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat, etc. Matt. 23:2. Both the Sacraments and Word are effectual by reason of the institution and commandment of Christ, notwithstanding they be administered by evil men.

3] They condemn the Donatists, and such like, who denied it to be lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who thought the ministry of evil men to be unprofitable and of none effect.

For one to find the means of grace offered by Christ through the Church, ISTM it has to be visible.
Jon

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe, but the Augsburg Confession says the following:

For one to find the means of grace offered by Christ through the Church, ISTM it has to be visible.
Jon

I agree with that.

If the Church is visible, then it must have been visible from the beginning. Therefore, that which was both visible then, and visible now, must be the True Church.

Does that make any sense?

 

[JonNC]

I agree with that.

If the Church is visible, then it must have been visible from the beginning. Therefore, that which was both visible then, and visible now, must be the True Church.

Does that make any sense?

Sure

Jon

 

[AmbroseSJ]

JonNC:

For one to find the means of grace offered by Christ through the Church, ISTM it has to be visible.
Jon

Right you are.

And at the same time, that Church must also be continuous, and unfailing. So it is written in the Prophets, and in Sacred Scripture. It cannot be here one minute then there the next. It is always the city on the hill. It is not destroyed by Anti-Christ one minute and then another city in the valley becomes the Church some time later. No the Church will continue until the end of time. There was no great apostasy, no falling off into idolatry and superstition, no snuffing out by the Anti-Christ, leading the faithful into error.

We see the historical proof, that the Roman Catholic Church continues till this day, never having failed, never falling into idolatry or superstition. It remains the city on the hill, a light to the world.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let me ask you this question, Jon.

Let’s say there’s a church led by a Lutheran pastor that has broken off from your church. They call themselves “Full Gospel Lutheran Evangelicals” (or something like that. The name is irrelevant).

They believe lots of the same things you believe, but they also profess that Mary is part of the Godhead, that the Pauline epistles are satanic and that women are inferior to men, according to the Bible.

Would you endorse their use of the title “Lutheran” in their name?

NB: I am not making any statement about Lutheran theology being satanic or references to its Mariology, or any putative antifeminism. Simply take the example I provided on its own merit.

Like “Old Catholics”.

 

[JonNC]

Let me ask you this question, Jon.

Let’s say there’s a church led by a Lutheran pastor that has broken off from your church. They call themselves “Full Gospel Lutheran Evangelicals” (or something like that. The name is irrelevant).

They believe lots of the same things you believe, but they also profess that Mary is part of the Godhead, that the Pauline epistles are satanic and that women are inferior to men, according to the Bible.

Would you endorse their use of the title “Lutheran” in their name?

NB: I am not making any statement about Lutheran theology being satanic or references to its Mariology, or any putative antifeminism. Simply take the example I provided on its own merit.

No, anymore than you would accept the name of our tradition as “Roman Lutheran Church”. Catholic is the name of the universal Church, the One Holy Church of which you and I are both members. Your tradition is generally known as The Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that, but it doesn’t mean those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the only Catholics, anymore more than they are the only Christians.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Like “Old Catholics”.

Or the PNCC, who are also indeed Catholic.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=AmbroseSJ;13836009]Right you are.

Thanks.

And at the same time, that Church must also be continuous, and unfailing. So it is written in the Prophets, and in Sacred Scripture. It cannot be here one minute then there the next. It is always the city on the hill. It is not destroyed by Anti-Christ one minute and then another city in the valley becomes the Church some time later. No the Church will continue until the end of time. There was no great apostasy, no falling off into idolatry and superstition, no snuffing out by the Anti-Christ, leading the faithful into error.

I suspect you think I would disagree with this. I don’t. Christ promised His Church would lead us into all truth. And so it is. Lutherans also believe, teach and confess that this "One Holy Church will continue forever." And no matter how humans, be they corrupt popes, bombastic reformers, ar any other humans mess things up, His Church will guide us.

We see the historical proof, that the Roman Catholic Church continues till this day, never having failed, never falling into idolatry or superstition. It remains the city on the hill, a light to the world.

It certainly is part of it.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

No, anymore than you would accept the name of our tradition as “Roman Lutheran Church”. Catholic is the name of the universal Church, the One Holy Church of which you and I are both members. Your tradition is generally known as The Catholic Church, and I have no problem with that, but it doesn’t mean those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are the only Catholics, anymore more than they are the only Christians.

Jon

I am sorry, Jon, but I am not following your answer.

You are saying that you would NOT endorse the idea of a church that believes that Mary is part of the Godhead, women are inferior, the Pauline epistles are satanic calling itself the “Lutheran Church of Christ” (or whatever).

Right?

Is that a correct summary of your position?

If so, then you should be consistent and NOT call yourself a Catholic when you have embraced some ideas that are not consonant with Catholicism.

You need to be consistent.

 

[JonNC]

I am sorry, Jon, but I am not following your answer.

You are saying that you would NOT endorse the idea of a church that believes that Mary is part of the Godhead, women are inferior, the Pauline epistles are satanic calling itself the “Lutheran Church of Christ” (or whatever).

Right?

Is that a correct summary of your position?

If so, then you should be consistent and NOT call yourself a Catholic when you have embraced some ideas that are not consonant with Catholicism.

You need to be consistent.

I am being consistent. I am not a Roman Catholic. I am an Evangelical Catholic.

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

I am being consistent. I am not a Roman Catholic. I am an Evangelical Catholic.

Jon

Surely you see the inconsistency, friend.

“Folks who claim that Mary is part of the Godhead ought not call themselves Lutheran!”

But! “I get to call myself Catholic even though I don’t give my religious assent to the pope!”

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I am being consistent. I am not a Roman Catholic. I am an Evangelical Catholic.

Jon

Wouldn’t something like “high-church Lutheran” be a more accurate description?

If I were going around identifying as Lutheran, with my Catholic beliefs telling people I belief Mary was without sin, ever virgin and assumed into Heaven…and praying for the departed in purgatory…that would be a misrepresentation of Lutheranism and be a bit disingenuous on my behalf.