What is invisible/visible church

[jmcrae]

From the Miriam-Webster online dictionary

Catholic:

Apostolic:

Protestants cite the creed assuming one dictionary definition of the words while Catholics cite the same creed assuming a second dictionary definition. Thus the charge of “changing the meaning of words” is not substantiated by the dictionary.

I was referring to the meanings of the words as understood by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

You do realize that your dictionary was written after Protestantism came along, right? Dictionaries describe how words are being used at the present time; they’re not useful for knowing the mind of people who lived 1700 years ago.

For that, we look at their writings, which we find in places like The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens and The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger.

 

[Syele]

Yes it is.

There must be no universally agreed upon definitions of these terms. Thus the definitions reduce to whatever the proponents or detractors say they are. Much like the terms “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”.

But then again adjectives and nouns without verbs aren’t even complete sentences. How can they be meaningful theological propositions?

Universally agreed on? well most protestants agree on the definitions of the terms. Catholics just don’t like/agree with them… so they make up new ones to jibe at us for it. See post #4 SyCarl covered the accepted definitions fairly well. Catholics posting up stuff like “the invisible church is for invisible people” is just being rude.

Thing is Catholics DO believe in the invisible church, they just won’t admit it. If they didn’t there would be NOTHING in the CCC that would allow for people to get to heaven outside of being in the visible Catholic Church. Last I checked… Catholics do believe such a thing is possible.

 

[Abira]

Yes it is.

There must be no universally agreed upon definitions of these terms. Thus the definitions reduce to whatever the proponents or detractors say they are. Much like the terms “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide”.

But then again adjectives and nouns without verbs aren’t even complete sentences. How can they be meaningful theological propositions?

lol ok, I’ve always had a very cut and dried view of these terms so it’s strange to read all of these answers… I suppose the only answer to the OP would be to ask whoever they were talking to what they understood these terms to be, or look at the context in which they were written…

when four words can come up with different answers from every post it makes me think the terms have no meaning in themselves whatsoever…or at least that they are useless because they have no fixed meaning.

S

 

[mozart-250]

Universally agreed on? well most protestants agree on the definitions of the terms. Catholics just don’t like/agree with them… so they make up new ones to jibe at us for it. See post #4 SyCarl covered the accepted definitions fairly well. Catholics posting up stuff like “the invisible church is for invisible people” is just being rude.

Thing is Catholics DO believe in the invisible church, they just won’t admit it. If they didn’t there would be NOTHING in the CCC that would allow for people to get to heaven outside of being in the visible Catholic Church. Last I checked… Catholics do believe such a thing is possible.

The problem here is two things I learned in school.

In middle school I learned that it takes a complete sentence to express a thought.

In graduate school I learned that all terms must be defined. I also learned that when there is disagreement, definitions of terminology must be the same. Without a common language, understanding and resolving the disagreement is impossible.

I agree that Catholics should agree with the statements:

• It is possible that non-professing Catholics will spend eternity in heaven
• We really do not know who is in eternity this side of the grave

 

[mozart-250]

I was referring to the meanings of the words as understood by the Bishops at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

You do realize that your dictionary was written after Protestantism came along, right? Dictionaries describe how words are being used at the present time; they’re not useful for knowing the mind of people who lived 1700 years ago.

For that, we look at their writings, which we find in places like The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens and The Sources of Catholic Dogma by Denzinger.

So now Protestants are guilty of corrupting the dictionary.

My first rule of thumb on sources is that Catholic sources have a Catholic agenda and Protestant sources have a Protestant agenda. Only where the sources agree can I be confident we are dealing with facts and not spin. That is probably outside of this thread.

On a number of levels, I think it very presumptous to assume how the earliest church (Polycarp, Ignatius, Peter, Paul, Clement) would react if all of a sudden they were magically transported in time into the 21st century church

 

[mozart-250]

The one thing that I have thought of in this thread (and it is probably another thread in itself) that bothers me is this.

The Catholic doctrine/dogma that the Catholic church is the one true visible church seems to be inconsistent with itself.

Reasoning:

In order for this to possibly be true, there must be a set of visible criteria that points to the Catholic church and the Catholic church only as the one true church.

The criteria proposed thus far (apostolic succession) is insufficient because that criteria points to both the Catholic and the Orthodox churches.

 

[Syele]

The problem here is two things I learned in school.

In middle school I learned that it takes a complete sentence to express a thought.

I can think of a few words that express a whole thought. Perhaps your Middle school oversimplified things a bit so you wouldn’t try to write essays with a total of 3 words.

In graduate school I learned that all terms must be defined. I also learned that when there is disagreement, definitions of terminology must be the same. Without a common language, understanding and resolving the disagreement is impossible.

I agree on this but I see some issues here. We are really talking about religious jargon. it is unreasonable to insist that say a group of plumbers submit to a group of electricians as to what their own jargon should be. Catholics here are saying Protestant Jargon is not correct because they don’t agree with it. The definition of the Protestant term “invisible Church” can’t be voided because non-Protestant people don’t like the term.

At the same time in order to discuss anything we must all understand what the other is trying to say… and different Jargon messes this up. Between Catholics and Protestants it’s probably abut HALF of the terms we use. Here are some examples:

Justification
Salvation
Sanctification
Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
saved
Alter Call

That is just a start. By your argument here, none of these terms have any meaning at all because not everyone agrees on their meaning. IF we start with this premise, we will never get anywhere at all because Catholics and Protestants disagree on a myriad of things.

I suggest instead we accept the definition accepted by the group who made up the jargon term for the purposes of discussion. Remember, the English language has MOST words with more than one possible definition, a quick glance at any dictionary should tell you this.

I agree that Catholics should agree with the statements:

• It is possible that non-professing Catholics will spend eternity in heaven
• We really do not know who is in eternity this side of the grave

Good so there is now a starting point for discussion.

I expect you would also be able to agree that some people who call themselves Catholics (or people who call themselves Protestants) will not spend eternity in heaven? Based on these three things we have a specific group of people who are all really part of ‘God’s eternal Church’ (People who will be in Heaven with God for eternity). I don’t know what Catholics call this ‘eternal Church’ or if they even bother to call it anything. Protestants recognize that we do not know for sure in advance who and who isn’t in this ‘eternal Church’. So we call it the “Invisible Church.” Catholics can hate the term if they like. It dosn’t mean the term has no definition.

 

[jmcrae]

So now Protestants are guilty of corrupting the dictionary.

No - rather, the dictionary describes how Protestants use the words, as well as how Catholics use the words. Dictionaries don’t prescribe meanings for words; they merely describe how they are already being used and understood in various sectors of society.

On a number of levels, I think it very presumptous to assume how the earliest church (Polycarp, Ignatius, Peter, Paul, Clement) would react if all of a sudden they were magically transported in time into the 21st century church

No, but we can read the thoughts that they recorded in writing, and we know that they thought the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was the Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that all others are heretical.

We know what they meant by the word “Apostolic” because they went to the trouble of making a list of the Bishops of Rome beginning with Peter and ending with the name of the living man who was the Bishop of Rome in their day. They also made a point of mentioning that all true Catholic Bishops are in apostolic union with the Bishop of Rome, and can equally trace their lineage back to the Apostles, through him (since it is the Bishop of Rome who ordains other Bishops).

And we know what they meant by the word “Catholic” because they said, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.”

 

[Sixtus]

My understanding of nvisible/visible Church is Church on earth and Church in Heaven, the communion of the Saints

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

There’s a rather nasty application of those categories, often trotted out by anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestants. These are the folks who claim that the Church supposedly went bad when it was first formally tolerated by the Roman rulers, by supposedly incorporating all kinds of pagan things into its beliefs to attract followers. That is fiction, of course, and none of the instances of supposed importation have ever stood scrutiny. But according to these folks, an invisible church of true, supposedly uncorrupted believers continued to exist as the invisible church. And when the reformation happened, they were able to become visible and active again.

The folks who spin this yarn often refer to us as Romish or Papists, and tend to be a fairly nasty lot, so it’s good to make sure who one is dealing with if the term “invisible church” gets dropped.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Sixtus]

Gerry Hunter posted:

The folks who spin this yarn often refer to us as Romish or Papists, and tend to be a fairly nasty lot

…and thats on a good day, you do not want to know what they say when they have had a bad one!

 

[mozart-250]

No, but we can read the thoughts that they recorded in writing, and we know that they thought the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was the Church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and that all others are heretical.

And this is where the presumption is (at least in my mind).

The problem they wrote about other stuff too. For example, we can also read their thoughts that they recorded in writing as to how the church should behave and what it should be doing.

So unless all of the metrics that they write about point conclusively to one church or another, all of us would be presumptous to presume to speak for them as to how they would weigh everything out.

My guess is that they would eschew the pomp and materialism of all of us in favor of an inner city ethnic church, but that is admittedly a guess on my part. Suffice it to say that at least to me the claims of any denomination to be the “one true church” are empty until this one true church produces a quality of Christianity decidedly superior to that produced by the “heretics”.

 

[jmcrae]

And this is where the presumption is (at least in my mind).

The problem they wrote about other stuff too. For example, we can also read their thoughts that they recorded in writing as to how the church should behave and what it should be doing.

Yes, we can. One of the things they said the Church should be doing is being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

So unless all of the metrics that they write about point conclusively to one church or another, all of us would be presumptous to presume to speak for them as to how they would weigh everything out.

They would ask whether the Traditions of the Apostles are being followed, both by word of mouth and by letter, and they would ask whether we were in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

My guess is that they would eschew the pomp and materialism of all of us in favor of an inner city ethnic church,

My Catholic parish is an “inner-city ethnic church,” actually - and I suspect that most “inner-city ethnic churches” are actually Catholic churches.

… but that is admittedly a guess on my part. Suffice it to say that at least to me the claims of any denomination to be the “one true church” are empty until this one true church produces a quality of Christianity decidedly superior to that produced by the “heretics”.

Well, the test is, do its Bishops trace their lineage back in an unbroken line to the Apostles? And, are they in full communion with the Bishop of Rome? Additionally, do they adhere to the Traditions of the Apostles, both by word of mouth, and by letter?

The Catholic Church passes all of these tests.

 

[Abira]

My understanding of nvisible/visible Church is Church on earth and Church in Heaven, the communion of the Saints

This is how my mother uses these terms too.

S

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

To use the terms that way, one would have to include the Church Suffering – the souls in purgatory – among those in the church invisible, along with the Church Triumphant.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Sixtus]

jmcrae,

My dear jmcrae, I think you are needling Mozart 250.

He claims to be Wesylian. There is another very good thread about the differences between us. It is well worth a visit.

Speak to Zooey, she too is Wesylian and is very forthcoming with her replies

 

[Sixtus]

Gerry posted:

To use the terms that way, one would have to include the Church Suffering – the souls in purgatory – among those in the church invisible, along with the Church Triumphant.

I 'l say amen to that!

 

[Sixtus]

SAinging beauty posted:

I depends on if you ask a catholic or a protestant…

 

[mozart-250]

Yes, we can. One of the things they said the Church should be doing is being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.

OK I get it. You believe that the only metric they would use is the one above. I am not convinced yet when there are other things that they write about that could also be used as metrics.

But my point is that the early church fathers will not be making an appearance from the dead to chime in on this discussion. Therefore, both of these propositions are not provable.

 

[mozart-250]

He claims to be Wesylian.

Wesleyan in theology.

I do not attend a Methodist church now even though I was raised a Methodist. However if I were to move to a relatively large metropolitan area I would probably choose either a conservative United Methodist church (yes they exist…my parents attend one in Florida) or a Free Methodist (how is that for specificity) church.

Actually I haven’t eliminated Catholic but if I were ever to be one I would be an independent thinking one like Mr Steadfast or Mr GottleOfGeer here which would make me a bigger pain than I now am.