To those who believe the Church is invisible

[zaffiroborant]

You simply have a very Catholic point of view
By your logic you are the first born son and only pure heir to the throne. The second, third and fourth born children are all illegitament, even if a DNA test proves they are the full child of the father.

To better know truth, I urge you to focus of the fruits of the tree. for every good tree bears good fruit.

No it’s much more like second, third and fourth born children saying “you are not our father and we don’t want any inheritance this family has to offer”.

 

[ChrisB103]

Chris, I’m looking into this, I don’t know the exact answer.
You may enjoy this WEB debate on the subject though

Thanks, I’ve begun reading the debate but I will probably finish it in the next couple days. Let me know the answer about the keys when you come up with it if you don’t mind. God bless.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You simply have a very Catholic point of view
By your logic you are the first born son and only pure heir to the throne. The second, third and fourth born children are all illegitament, even if a DNA test proves they are the full child of the father.

To better know truth, I urge you to focus of the fruits of the tree. for every good tree bears good fruit.

The Catholic view is based on the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles, as found in the New Testament, the Church is the bride of Christ, not the son. Jesus is faithful to His bride.

 

[CopticChristian]

Chris,
At some level I think you could say all Christians who believe ‘the Rock’ was God and not Peter see themselves as part of the ‘invisible church’ of Christ. This invisible church connects us above our local denomination, etc.

Regarding Mt 18:15-18, There is plenty of bible commentary from experts that concurr this is about how to discipline your neighbor, who may be an unrepentant sinner. It applies to the heirarchy as they may be the sinner, friend, witness, or part of the local church council that might excommunicate a member.

I can’t comprehend how you can say “it’s difficult to pin any set list of beliefs on them” about Protestants. Catholics agree the bible represnts the teachings of Christ, and the bible is explicit in what it asks us to do, at least for what is salvific. To be simple, we all agree on the 10 commandments and the need for baptism + repentance, even if we don’t agree on the exact method.

It’s also easy to argue that protestants have the same lineage as Catholics.** I like the analogy of a orchard or vineyard, where cuttings are taken from one tree, that might be sick, to propogate new trees that deliver good fruit in abundance**.

In your analogy tell me which trees are sick Protestant or Catholic?

In your anaolgy which tree is bearing good fruit in abundance Protestant or Catholic?

 

[Tony888]

In your analogy tell me which trees are sick Protestant or Catholic?

In your anaolgy which tree is bearing good fruit in abundance Protestant or Catholic?

At the time of the reformation, obviously Protestants claimed the Catholic tree was beleagured and yielding bad fruit.

Presently, I believe they both yield good fruit.

 

[Publisher]

Perhaps my OP was not clear, as multiple people are mistaking it to mean that I don’t think they have a physical place of worship. And perhaps I have misunderstood people’s statements that have led me to the conclusion that some believers understand the Church (read: the body of Christ) to be only a spiritual, invisible reality. My question might be better phrased this way:
In what way do different kinds of Christians believe their denomination relates to the Church referenced in the following verses:

1. Matthew 18:15-18 “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Since each gathered community of believers should be self governing and minister to the needs of the people…so too it should offer correction and instruction to an erring brother or sister…the community of faith offers correction and reconcilliation…surely you’re not suggesting if a Catholic offends in some way…the WHOLE CHURCH must be involved…or is it some local entity which disiplines or corrects?

From these verses, it seems that the Church can make binding statements on believers, which can be used as a guide to settle disputes of different natures. How do Quakers (and the particular denomination of anyone else reading this) understand their denomination’s role in the Church as referenced here?

**The Church gathers each First Day for worship…in many ways we see ourselves as members of the Church as a whole…each of us serving as we are called.**2)

1 Timothy 3:15 “But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”

The Church IS that which supports and upholds the Truth…the Church is the support for the truth…not the origin or determiner of Truth…but it’s support of Truth.

We are told here that the Church is the “pillar and ground of the truth”. In what way would you, as a Quaker, understand the relationship of your denomination to the Church as referenced and defined in 1 Timothy 3:15?

Hopefully this clarifies my purpose. It always seems clear in my head when I’m thinking about how to word my thoughts, but then again I sound just like the artist of a song when I sing it to myself

 

[CopticChristian]

At the time of the reformation, obviously Protestants claimed the Catholic tree was beleagured and yielding bad fruit.

Presently, I believe they both yield good fruit.

I **like **the analogy of a orchard or vineyard, where cuttings are taken from one tree, that might be sick, to propogate new trees that deliver good fruit in abundance.

I do not believe you satisfied me. You said you like this analogy. Why do you like this analogy?

I have a BS in Zoology, as you know Gregor Mendel a Catholic monk is the father of Genetics and my dad was a Pharmacist…science runs in my mind…

You like this analogy… Help me understand the cuttings. Where are the cuttings taken from and by whom…in your analogy…Then tell me who puts the cuttings where…that suggests that there is a place to take healthy cuttings.

A tree you say is sick…cuttings are taken…Who did this? Then you say that the cuttings are placed somewhere…where is this…this implies that there are trees that are well…they can’t just be placed in space…then tell me what became of the sick tree…if it got well as in your analogy…the cuttings were of no purpose…

You need to elaborate and be definite about your analogy for me to like it…

Catholics are a treee…Protestants are a cutting…you then say Protestants say the Catholic tree…beleagured and yielding bad fruit…

This is your analogy…why do you bring in what others think…I want to know what you think…It is your analogy…and you like it

 

[Tony888]

Coptic,
Actually I borrowed the allegory from LDS scripture. Please read Jacob 5 for the source.

Cheers

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
Actually I borrowed the allegory from LDS scripture. Please read Jacob 5 for the source.

Cheers

I don’t think you understand your own writings…you generalized this to Protestants and Catholics…

I will liken thee, O house of aIsrael, like unto a tame bolive tree, which a man took and nourished in his cvineyard; and it grew, and waxed old, and began to ddecay.

17 And it came to pass that the Lord of the vineyard looked and beheld the tree in the which the wild olive branches had been grafted; and it had sprung forth and begun to bear afruit. And he beheld that it was good; and **the fruit thereof was like unto the natural fruit./**QUOTE]

According to your sources…this allegory refers to Jew and Gentile.

To illustrate his prophecy about the Jews and Gentiles, Lehi uses language from Zenos’s allegory. When he teaches his sons that the Jews would dwindle in unbelief, he says that the house of Israel “should be compared like unto an olive-tree, whose branches should be broken off and should be scattered” (1 Nephi 10:12). To explain that the house of Israel would later be gathered together again, he says that “the natural branches of the olive-tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in” (verse 14). Lehi connects the breaking off of the branches to dwindling in unbelief and interprets the scattering of the branches in Zenos’s allegory to mean, in part, that “we should be led with one accord into the land of promise, unto the fulfilling of the word of the Lord, that we should be scattered upon all the face of the earth” (verse 13). He interprets the grafting of the natural branches back into the olive tree as regaining knowledge of Christ: “The natural branches of the olive-tree, or the remnants of the house of Israel, should be grafted in, or come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer” (verse 14). These themes reappear in later Nephite interpretation of Zenos.

You have not told me why you like portraying Protestants and Catholics this way…

If you want to consider olive trees and the way that Jacob states…the tree produces what the original tree produced…NATURAL FRUIT…

I ask you to clarify for me how you got this analogy from what you read…or you can change your mind and say you were mistaken…in your understanding of Jacob 5…

 

[Tony888]

Coptic,
Read the LDS allegory and do with it as you wish. I never said Jacob 5 was deemed to describe the protestant reformation. I would have cited it from the begininng if it was an ‘official source’.

However, reading scripture can enlighten us beyond it’s historical context. I find the allagory comforting, that God has constantly nurtured us, like the farmer works his orchard to bear good fruit. And yes, I personally like the allegory for describing the reformation, or how buddhists or hindus may exist in relation to God.

The allegory reminds me to judge the fruits of a tree rather than become obsessed with the pedigree of a tree.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic,
Read the LDS allegory and do with it as you wish. I never said Jacob 5 was deemed to describe the protestant reformation. I would have cited it from the begininng if it was an ‘official source’.

However, reading scripture can enlighten us beyond it’s historical context. I find the allagory comforting, that God has constantly nurtured us, like the farmer works his orchard to bear good fruit. And yes, I personally like the allegory for describing the reformation, or how buddhists or hindus may exist in relation to God.

The allegory reminds me to judge the fruits of a tree rather than become obsessed with the pedigree of a tree.

So,

it appears that you have gone beyond the allegory of the tree producing the Natural Fruits of the tree and the olive tree producing pomegranits, lemons, and cashews…

 

[Denise1957]

I did a brief search to see if this is one of those topics that comes up frequently, but I didn’t find anything too recent. I’ve always wondered how Christians who believe that the Church is only an invisible entity view a couple things:

1. The teaching authority of the Church.
   (i.e. Matthew 18:15-18 where Christ tells believers that the Church can settle a dispute.) It seems to me that to have a Church that can teach correctly means there must be at least some visible portion to it, and that this visible portion will have set beliefs (which seems to me to rule out the idea that all Christian churches participate fully in the invisible Church because they teach contradicting things).
2. The clear structure and unity that the early Church shows.
   Sure, they didn’t always agree on everything by any means, but the whole early Church (as far as I’ve seen) recognized bishops, priests, and deacons, and saw the bishops to have an intimate tie (in lineage and teaching) to the apostles.

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts!

I agree. There has to be a visible structure for the Church to effectively pass on Holy Orders and the Dogmas of the Faith. There is a clear line of succession from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVl. Jesus clearly made Peter (Peter means “rock”) the head of the others, and in this He established a necessary heirarchy, because in order to maintain unity of faith, there must be a visible Church and heirarchy, which has been passed down through the centuries.

 

[Tony888]

So,

it appears that you have gone beyond the allegory of the tree producing the Natural Fruits of the tree and the olive tree producing pomegranits, lemons, and cashews…

And what allegory would you use to describe the reformation?

 

[Nicea325]

And what allegory would you use to describe the reformation?

You mean the Deformation?

 

[CopticChristian]

And what allegory would you use to describe the reformation?

Tony,

I had not given it much thought. I really do not consider the “reformation” what it is called…I am a student of thought and a Science based minded guy, cradle Catholic, with a modicum of understanding of Church issues…I do my best. I ascribe to General Semantics, NLP, Neurosemantics when it comes to understanding and thinking in general. If you are interested the classic works for General Semantics are “Science and Sanity” by Alfred Korzybski and a shorter easier read “Manhood of Humanity” that summarizes the former…His basic concept is “The Map is not the Territory”…in other words what is out there isn’t necessarily consistent with what you think and espouse and we espouse with “words”…with that in mind…do you really believe that the “reformation” was a “reformation”? I don’t…

The word has not always been used in time…

Middle English, from Anglo-French refurmer, from Latin reformare, from re- + formare to form, from forma form
First Known Use: 14th century

It is defined as follows…

1. a : to put or change into an improved form or condition
   b : to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses

2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action

3: to induce or cause to abandon evil ways

4 a : to subject (hydrocarbons) to cracking
b : to produce (as gasoline or gas) by cracking

Synonyms: habilitate, reclaim, redeem, regenerate, rehabilitate

Examples of REFORM

1. The program is designed to reform prisoners.
2. They want to reform campaign spending.
3. The laws need to be reformed.
4. The program is designed to help former gang members who are trying to reform.

You can twist the definition anyway you like however it was not a reform…Consider your computer…how often do you have to push F8 to restore to a time when the computer was not corrupt…you get the same computer with all the workings it had before…

I do not consider it a reform. I cannot think for the life of me of any plant or animal allegory. I do believe that there are two that come to mind…

The first is the Prodigal Son…The Church is the Family of God…children come and children go…they are always welcome back…

The next would be the tower of Babel… and if you don’t believe me go check this thread…

Re: Office Hours: The Lure of Rome by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

Post 25 David Noonan

1. The presenter doesn’t seem to have a very good grip at all on the Reformation generally speaking, or Sola Scriptura in particular, and then (worse) tries to connect modern evangelicalism as inheritors to the Reformation in ways that are not accurate or authentic. Note the way he uses the terms Protestant, Reformed and Evangelical almost as if they were interchangeable./

QUOTE]

No Protestant speaks for any other Protestant…they want to do what they want outside the Covenant on their own to reach God…they can’t even speak in the same terrms and there is no such thing as a Protestant church that is “reformed”…

The last thing I would say is that as student of thought…Protestanism at it’s inception is heresy…and in thought I see it as a “meme”…You will find this term used in books like “Virus of the Mind”…It is a thought that infects the mind of the faithful and unsuspecting and is propagated by repeition, cognitive dissonance, and bundling/Trojan horse action…If you listen to the audio provided by the OP "the lure of Rome, office hours…you will see in action all of these techniques. This is the method of transmission of the meme and if you think you understand what is being said clearly then you can be sure that you have been infected…

 

[PLeeD]

It’s apparent to me that whenever the progression of “take it to the person”, “take it to two or three”, then “take it to the church” appears, it is always in the context of your brother sinning against you. That is, your fellow Christian has lied to you, cheated you, or stolen from you personally. Some tranlslations leave out the “against you” part, but it should be there.

Understanding it that way, the teaching seems to match with the context of Paul’s teaching about lawsuits among believers in the opening of 1 Cor 6.

How do people go from the idea of seeking restitution after being wronged, to wholesale judgement of the perceived sins of others, when those supposed sins don’t personally affect us? This seems like a huge problem for Christians in general. “Judging others” is assumed to be justified based on these passages.

 

[JohnVIII]

1. The clear structure and unity that the early Church shows.
   Sure, they didn’t always agree on everything by any means, but the whole early Church (as far as I’ve seen) recognized bishops, priests, and deacons, and saw the bishops to have an intimate tie (in lineage and teaching) to the apostles.

I look forward to hearing all of your thoughts!

There was no visible unity in the early churches, “Catholic unity” didn’t begin to become a reality until the mid 2nd century. There were a large number of Gnostics and Marcionits in the 1st & 2nd century who believed that there could be no physical Church, it had to be only spiritual, because they believed that the God of creation was not the same God as the Father of Jesus Christ, so therefore the Church of Jesus Christ could not be a part of the created world.

 

[ChrisB103]

There was no visible unity in the early churches, “Catholic unity” didn’t begin to become a reality until the mid 2nd century. There were a large number of Gnostics and Marcionits in the 1st & 2nd century who believed that there could be no physical Church, it had to be only spiritual, because they believed that the God of creation was not the same God as the Father of Jesus Christ, so therefore the Church of Jesus Christ could not be a part of the created world.

By visible unity, I’m talking about the hierarchy of the Church - bishops, priests and deacons. There certainly were bishops, priests and deacons in the early Church, were there not? We are reminded many times in the early writings to “let nothing be done without the bishop”. A good, early example is in chapter 8 and 9 of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

Certainly, however, there was not the same extent of visible unity that we experience today. It seems to me that this was likely a result of the Church being so young at the time, so there were bigger battles to fight than to spend lots of energy communicating extensively between churches. Your thoughts?

 

[Tony888]

By visible unity, I’m talking about the hierarchy of the Church - bishops, priests and deacons. There certainly were bishops, priests and deacons in the early Church, were there not? We are reminded many times in the early writings to “let nothing be done without the bishop”. A good, early example is in chapter 8 and 9 of St. Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Smyrnaeans.

Certainly, however, there was not the same extent of visible unity that we experience today. It seems to me that this was likely a result of the Church being so young at the time, so there were bigger battles to fight than to spend lots of energy communicating extensively between churches. Your thoughts?

So are you stating that any church with the structure of Bishops, Priests and Deacons reflects the actual hierarchy and thus unity of the early church?

 

[CopticChristian]

So are you stating that any church with the structure of Bishops, Priests and Deacons reflects the actual hierarchy and thus unity of the early church?

Your answer to this question can be found on this site at…

catholic.com/magazine/articles/stewards-of-the-kingdom

1. Was the early Church local and congregational?
   We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning the churches were ruled by elders (bishops). The New Testament describes the apostles appointing these elders (see Acts 14:23, Ti 1:5). The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle (1 Pt 1:1, 5:1). Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, has pointed out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early Church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. In the first two centuries there was no Bible as such, for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason . . . they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians, 44). Ignatius of Antioch writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ . . . that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The successors to the apostles reject the idea of a church being independent, local, and congregational. Thus, by the late second century, Irenaeus writes,

Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world . . . therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies . . . by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned apostles Peter and Paul . . . for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world. (Against Heresies, 3:3)