Visible vs Invisible Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter searching87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

searching87

Guest
First, I apologize if someone has already asked this question.

I am an Anglican Christian who is attracted to Rome, but I am still trying to have some questions answered. One of the problems I have is the claim that the Catholic Church is the VISIBLE one true church. I have always believed that Christ’s Church is INVISIBLE and it includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. One of the reasons I believe this is because of the Charismatic movement. This new movement of God has been in both Catholic and Protestant churches. Why would God move in this way in Protestant churches if they are not part of the one true church? I look forward to people’s opinions.
 
The Holy Spirit blows where He will. Yet, He is a unifying Spirit, and not a dividing spirit. As well, each of us has at least one charism which we received at our baptism and confirmation. How are we to exercise that charism unless and until we identify it? I do not consider myself a member of the charismatic movement, but their work enabled me to identify and use my charism. The fact that there are protestants who do the same only shows that they, too, are members of the Body of Christ.

As to Church visibility, we are temples of the Holy Spirit, and Christ abides in us. Christ is light and a light is not to be concealed beneath a basket, but rather, raised up and placed on a lamp stand. The Sacraments, for example, are visible channels of God’s invisible grace. Since the Church is Christ’s mystical Body, and since Christ was very visible, being made manifest in the flesh, we who are His members are also called to be light for the world. This is not done exclusively through visible means, but we are called to be a visible manifestation of Christ’s love.
 
It’s not either Visible or Invisible, it is both.

The Invisible Church consists of all in the Body of Christ through Baptism.
The Visible Church is that which maintains the teachings of the apostles and of Jesus Christ, which by our standards is the Catholic Church because Her doctrine has not wavered for close to 2000 years.
 
A very common notion circulating around the non-Catholic world is the notion of the “invisible church of believers”. This notion teaches that Jesus did not desire to create a single visible Church, but instead wished to create an invisible church of people who we bound simply by belief rather than membership of an organization or any practice. This philosophy finds a great number of adherents among those who believe in sola fides, sola scriptura and eternal assurance. This viewpoint is not specifically anti-Catholic (although there are people who hold to this view who are anti-Catholic) and often maintains that the Catholic Church is correct – but that no other sect is actually incorrect. It is enough to “believe in Jesus Christ” to be part of the church which He founded. Obviously, in addition to being illogical (how can both the Catholics who deny this and the non-Catholics who accept this both be right?), this is not the Catholic teaching.

A number of non-Catholics are using the word “catholic” (with a small “c”) to refer to this purported invisible church of believers. This is not correct. prior to 1517 (and perhaps even later) – the word “Catholic” was always used to refer to beliefs that were in accord with the bishop of Rome and the teachings of what would today be understood to be the Roman Catholic Church. The first appearance of the words “Catholic Church” in writing are a letter from Ignatius of Antioch who writes “Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” This clearly shows that the Catholic Church as identified by the person who first used the term in writing (although he probably did not coin the term) has bishops – the only Church of the period which had bishops (in fact, the only Church of the period!) was the Roman Catholic Church.

Non-Catholics claim that the word “catholic” simply means universal and, therefore, that it can refer to the universal invisible church of believers. But this is not the case – universal means “to be one”; and there are too many points of disagreement between the Catholic Church and non-Catholic denominations to be considered to be “one”.

Scripture and common sense make it very clear that the Church has authority – if the Church is an invisible church, then how can anyone know where to go for authoritative teaching and correction? When members of the invisible church hold contrary opinions, how can it be known who is correct unless the Church and her teaching authority are visible and clearly displayed? The fact that there must be a singular, visible, authoritative Church, disproves the idea of an invisible Church.

The view that the Church is visible, hierarchical, and authoritative forms a key understanding of all other Catholic doctrines. It is the Church who administers the sacraments, which are the ordinary means of salvation and grace. It is the Church who determined which books belonged in Sacred Scripture. Now, even Peter himself says that the Bible can be hard to understand (II Peter 3:16). Because different Christians have different interpretations of the Bible it cannot be self authenticating. This means that it must have an external source of authority in order to be correctly interpreted. That source of authority is the authority which wrote and assembled the Bible.

Scripture is clear that the Church has authority – in Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus delegates His power to the apostles. The authority to perform specific acts is given in other passages – John 20:23 (the power to forgive sin), I Corinthians 11:23-24 (the power to offer sacrifice, the Eucharist), Luke 10:16 (the power to speak with Christ’s voice), Matthew 18:18 (the power to legislate) and Matthew 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 is simply 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! Organizations logically require authority over their members and authority to determine what the criteria for membership are; otherwise they are not organizations at all, but simply a label without a clear definition.

The Church is often described as bearing four “marks” - One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Not only is the Church these things, but it is necessary for the Church to be these things.

Continued →
 
Continued —>

One: the Church is unified, single and one; there are not two or three or more true Churches, for two contradictory things cannot both be true, and if we narrow it down to the most basic set of two Churches and they are different, then at least one of them must be wrong - which proves that there is only one true Church.

Holy: 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? This is shown by the fact that Jesus is married to the Church (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7, 21:2), by the teaching that marriage makes man and wife one flesh, and by the constant references in Scripture that the Church is Jesus’ Christ’s mystical body. The Church is Jesus Christ’s body and is, therefore, holy (although individual members of the Church are not impeccable).

Catholic: “catholic” means universal – the Church established by Jesus Christ must be universal and be found everywhere. Because the Church also has to be one it has to be universal – there could not be national or geographically limited Churches because they would either teach different things, or they would – in fact – be one Church. The Catholic Church is the only Christian “denomination” in the world to not be split into geographically local groups and to have consistent theological teachings across all individual places of worship. She is also found on every continent and in virtually every country in the world, and is constantly expanding. Her membership is open to all and she has endured for nearly 2000 years. By anyone’s standard, that has to be considered universal.

Apostolic: the Church claims genuine descent from the apostles who were selected and chosen by Jesus Christ. Jesus desired to found a Church which would contain genuine priests who were capable of acting in His place to administer the ordinary means of salvation, the sacraments. Jesus chose men to be His apostles and 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). Saint Paul says, very clearly, in Ephesians 2:20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Clearly, therefore, Jesus wanted a Church which not only had a priesthood, but also a Church whose priesthood could claim legitimate descent from the apostles. Today, the only Church which has legitimate descent from the apostles is the Catholic Church.

Additionally, simple 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.

Logically speaking, 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?

I hope the above helps.
 
Hi Searching

My personal view is that the visible Church is all those that follow and who do God’s will on Earth, bringing the love of Christ to people. In your own church you have the great examples of people like +Desmond Tutu, Jackie Pullinger and Nicky Gumble. If they are not in the visible Church then I don’t know who is.

Just a different way of looking at this.

God bless +
 
I think like what another poster said, it’s not either or, it both!

Catholics believe in the Mystical body of Christ, which joins together all baptized, in heaven and on earth. Obviously there’s a dimension that’s invisible to that, but it’s not the whole story.

The problem with the idea of the Church being solely invisible though is, Jesus never wanted that.😃 I could point to literally dozens of New Testament passages, but I think for now I’ll just stick to John 17:20-21, where Jesus prays for the apostles and those who will believe because of them.
“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, SO THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME.”(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...
Here Jesus not only prays that Christians will be perfectly one, but that their unity will be a sign to the world!! The only way that could ever happen is if this unity was a visible one. Not purely spiritual, though thats certainly important. But something the world can see as well. Which can only be found in a visible, authoritative church.👍
 
R_C said:
A very common notion circulating around the non-Catholic world is the notion of the “invisible church of believers”. This notion teaches that Jesus did not desire to create a single visible Church, but instead wished to create an invisible church of people who we bound simply by belief rather than membership of an organization or any practice. This philosophy finds a great number of adherents among those who believe in sola fides, sola scriptura and eternal assurance. This viewpoint is not specifically anti-Catholic (although there are people who hold to this view who are anti-Catholic) and often maintains that the Catholic Church is correct – but that no other sect is actually incorrect. It is enough to “believe in Jesus Christ” to be part of the church which He founded. Obviously, in addition to being illogical (how can both the Catholics who deny this and the non-Catholics who accept this both be right?), this is not the Catholic teaching.

…
Continued →
Click to expand...
Excellent posts, RC! 👍
 
R_C said:
Continued —>

One: the Church is unified, single and one; there are not two or three or more true Churches, for two contradictory things cannot both be true, and if we narrow it down to the most basic set of two Churches and they are different, then at least one of them must be wrong - which proves that there is only one true Church.

Holy: 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? This is shown by the fact that Jesus is married to the Church (Ephesians 5:22-32, Revelation 19:7, 21:2), by the teaching that marriage makes man and wife one flesh, and by the constant references in Scripture that the Church is Jesus’ Christ’s mystical body. The Church is Jesus Christ’s body and is, therefore, holy (although individual members of the Church are not impeccable).

Catholic: “catholic” means universal – the Church established by Jesus Christ must be universal and be found everywhere. Because the Church also has to be one it has to be universal – there could not be national or geographically limited Churches because they would either teach different things, or they would – in fact – be one Church. The Catholic Church is the only Christian “denomination” in the world to not be split into geographically local groups and to have consistent theological teachings across all individual places of worship. She is also found on every continent and in virtually every country in the world, and is constantly expanding. Her membership is open to all and she has endured for nearly 2000 years. By anyone’s standard, that has to be considered universal.

Apostolic: the Church claims genuine descent from the apostles who were selected and chosen by Jesus Christ. Jesus desired to found a Church which would contain genuine priests who were capable of acting in His place to administer the ordinary means of salvation, the sacraments. Jesus chose men to be His apostles and 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). Saint Paul says, very clearly, in Ephesians 2:20 that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Clearly, therefore, Jesus wanted a Church which not only had a priesthood, but also a Church whose priesthood could claim legitimate descent from the apostles. Today, the only Church which has legitimate descent from the apostles is the Catholic Church.

Additionally, simple 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.

Logically speaking, 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?

I hope the above helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks R_C! Well said.

Nothing could be more evident than these truths to one who studies the mystery of Christ and the Church in the light of the doctrine of the Mystical Body. No one can partake of the beneficial influences of the Head unless he belong to that Body which the Head rules and vivifies. It is a pretense to call a number of human beings, without bond or cohesion, everyone separately through his own conscience seeking to draw life from Christ, a living organic body.

Considered from just the invisible Church theory:
  1. What happens to to the diverse functions of different members?
  2. Where is the compact solidarity so affirmed by St. Paul?
  3. Where is the organism, so complex, yet so wholly one, to which Christ gave Apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds, doctors, charged to perfect by their ministry the faithful, to edify the Body of Christ, to insure their growth unto the perfect man, to protect the faithful from the excitements and changes of merely human doctrines?
There must be a return to the whole Christ of St. Paul and the Fathers, to the Christ of Whom the Church is the fullness, the real and mystical development, the Body of which He is the Head. He as the Church “continues Himself in the universality of His mission and His powers through all the centuries of time.”
 
searching87 said:
First, I apologize if someone has already asked this question.

I am an Anglican Christian who is attracted to Rome, but I am still trying to have some questions answered. One of the problems I have is the claim that the Catholic Church is the VISIBLE one true church. I have always believed that Christ’s Church is INVISIBLE and it includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. One of the reasons I believe this is because of the Charismatic movement. This new movement of God has been in both Catholic and Protestant churches. Why would God move in this way in Protestant churches if they are not part of the one true church? I look forward to people’s opinions.
Click to expand...
I spent 15 years in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, so I’ll venture a response.

Because God is merciful, He has chosen to bless His children as He sees fit.

This does not mean that all of their denominations are equal in His eyes, however.
 
The clearest proof is in the history of the Church. It started with one Church. The story was the same for all Christians then. The apostles spread the Good News far and wide and yet everyone sung from the same hymn page. Heretics threaten the early church but the Holy Spirit prevailed again and again. Was it visible? Was the church in Corinth/Ephesus visible? These were visible churches in St Paul’s letters. And he appealed to the Christians in 1 Cor 10 for unity because various groups were claiming to belong to Paul, Apollos, Cephas etc.

And it remain one till the schisms. Wikipedia has an interesting take on schism.

"In Roman Catholic teaching, every heresy is a schism, while there may be some schisms free of the added guilt of heresy. Liberal protestantism, however, has often preferred heresy over schism. Presbyterian scholar James I. McCord (quoted with approval by the Episcopalian bishop of Virginia Peter Lee) drew a distinction between them, teaching: “If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.”

Unless history is wrong, the Catholic Church is 2000 yrs old and at last check no other church claims to go that far back. If you are not Catholic, then you either belong to the heresy or schismatic camps. I am sorry the truth is so blunt. History is NOT on your side.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I spent 15 years in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, so I’ll venture a response.

Because God is merciful, He has chosen to bless His children as He sees fit.

This does not mean that all of their denominations are equal in His eyes, however.
Click to expand...
Could you recommend any good books or some sermons from priests about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal?
 
The Church is Christ’s body.

*What was from the beginning,
what we have heard,
what we have seen with our eyes,
what we looked upon
and touched with our hands
concerns the Word of life

for the life was made visible;
we have seen it and testify to it
and proclaim to you the eternal life
that was with the Father and was made visible to us
(1 John 1:1-2)*

Christ was visible so the Church, which is his body, must also be visible.

Christ’s body was not, nor is it now invisible. Christ himself cannot be seen yet have an invisible body. That doesn’t make sense.

-Tim-
 
searching87 said:
First, I apologize if someone has already asked this question.

I am an Anglican Christian who is attracted to Rome, but I am still trying to have some questions answered. One of the problems I have is the claim that the Catholic Church is the VISIBLE one true church. I have always believed that Christ’s Church is INVISIBLE and it includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants. One of the reasons I believe this is because of the Charismatic movement. This new movement of God has been in both Catholic and Protestant churches. Why would God move in this way in Protestant churches if they are not part of the one true church? I look forward to people’s opinions.
Click to expand...
If there is no visible Church…how would the world know what God says about abortion? Contraception? Gay marriage? etc,etc?

With protestantism which fractured the Body of Christ…and some have gone opposite the positions espoused by the Catholic Church…who would the world listen to?

Anyway, just musings…
 
In Catechism class the kids learn that Jesus was physical, and of course visible. He set up an authoritative Church structure based on physical, visible men. Jesus went to Heaven. His visible, physical Church continues in the Magisterium and the Faithful: all physical, all visible.
 
=searching87;10524186]First, I apologize if someone has already asked this question.
Click to expand...
I am an Anglican Christian who is attracted to Rome, but I am still trying to have some questions answered. One of the problems I have is the claim that the Catholic Church is the VISIBLE one true church. I have always believed that Christ’s Church is INVISIBLE and it includes Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants.
Click to expand...
We can put your conclusion that the Church is invisible to the test.
In Matthew 18:15 Jesus said that if you sin against your brother and it cannot be resolved you are to “take it to the Church” and if one of these fellows refuses to listen “even to the Church!” he is to be removed.
As an Anglican you believe in infant baptism. I can easily find a Baptist pastor that would call you a heretic and a false teacher that is damning people to hell for such a belief.

To find out if you are committing the sin of heresy let’s follow Christ’s advice and take it to the Church. What Church are you and the Baptist going to go to for the decision if the “Church” is invisible?
If all believers are the Church then will the Baptist let the Lutherans decided? No, because they also baptize infants.
If all believers are the Church will you let the Church of Christ decide? No, because they reject infant baptism.

Christ does say to take it to the Church. No one can deny that.He doesn’t say that is only for the first century.

That clearly means there will always be a visible Church that one can actually go to for a decision that is final and that has the authority to excommunicate the offender if he doesn’t agree with the Church’s decision.

Anglicanism didn’t begin until the 16th century so it cannot be the first century Church. The only Church that can be traced back to the first century is the Catholic Church under the authority of the successor of Peter.

It is the visible Catholic Church under Pope Francis, the successor of Peter, that you and the Baptist will have to submit to in order to obey Christ’s command to “take it to the Church”
 
The bottom line: ‘invisible church’ is just another protestant fiction–another liberty taken with Holy Scripture–yet another extrinsic concept–along with sola scriptura, sola fide, TULIP, “once saved, always saved”… infused out of convenience, into the Bible…

…by the very folks who fashion themselves, the supreme servants of the Word of God.

Would that our seperated brethren but judge themselves, as they have judged the One True Holy Catholic Church that Christ Jesus Himself, founded–that they might see the degree of hypocrisy, duplicity, inconsistency, and sefl-contradiction of their beiefs…
 
Third_Day said:
We can put your conclusion that the Church is invisible to the test.
In Matthew 18:15 Jesus said that if you sin against your brother and it cannot be resolved you are to “take it to the Church” and if one of these fellows refuses to listen “even to the Church!” he is to be removed.
As an Anglican you believe in infant baptism. I can easily find a Baptist pastor that would call you a heretic and a false teacher that is damning people to hell for such a belief.

To find out if you are committing the sin of heresy let’s follow Christ’s advice and take it to the Church. What Church are you and the Baptist going to go to for the decision if the “Church” is invisible?
If all believers are the Church then will the Baptist let the Lutherans decided? No, because they also baptize infants.
If all believers are the Church will you let the Church of Christ decide? No, because they reject infant baptism.

Christ does say to take it to the Church. No one can deny that.He doesn’t say that is only for the first century.

That clearly means there will always be a visible Church that one can actually go to for a decision that is final and that has the authority to excommunicate the offender if he doesn’t agree with the Church’s decision.

Anglicanism didn’t begin until the 16th century so it cannot be the first century Church. The only Church that can be traced back to the first century is the Catholic Church under the authority of the successor of Peter.

It is the visible Catholic Church under Pope Francis, the successor of Peter, that you and the Baptist will have to submit to in order to obey Christ’s command to “take it to the Church”
Click to expand...
btw: Excellent post, sir! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top