Where does the Bible say that the church is invisible?

[With_Questions]

Jesus sent them out to preach the Gospel.
He sent them to teach, so they should be sent to teach without error.
He didn’t send them out to ‘conduct yourselves perfectly’.

But didn’t he have standards of conduct which He expects us to live our lives according to? Doesn’t Scripture have standards of conduct that are expected of leaders?

Peter would have failed the church before it even started by his threefold denial.

The Catholic Church does not claim any member, not even the pope, to be impeccable.

michel

I know that is the claim of the Catholic Church. But that does not answer my question, although you get brownie points for trying. I am.still waiting for the Protestant answer to the Matthew 18 question? I’ll back up.

The Catholics claim a “true church” must be 100% error free in doctrine is this correct? At least it was stated that way in this thread?

What if denomination ‘X’ were to claim that a “true church” must be free of gross historical misconduct. I’ll slack off the implication of impeccibility and use for an example that a true church must not have any biggie scandals in its history amongst its leadership? This denomination could answer the Peter counter example you cite by simply claiming this was prior to him being a leader in the church.

Why would your benchmark of being a “true church” be correct while the benchmark of denomination X be incorrect? Because Catholicism says so is not an answer here.

 

[cazayoux]

The first question would be why isn’t this “doctrine”? What is doctrine in Catholicism and what distinguishes it from “not doctrine”?

Doctrine is a teaching that is specifically stated as authoritative and infallible from the chair of Peter. It could be a ratification from the chair regarding a council. Consider the trinity, actually the entire Nicene Creed, the canon of the bible, female priests…
Somebody smarter than I am would probably be able to give a better definitive answer on the requirements of recognizing a doctrine.

The second question would be why is change in things that are not doctrine allowed but change in doctrine apparantly disqualifies one from being a “true church” (whatever that is).

These non-doctrinal things could be practices (such as married priests, or even the color of priestly vestments) or even issues that just have not been defined infallibly, yet.

Some issues have gone through quite a bit of council and discussion before being defined. Consider Limbo. It was not a doctrine, but studied and discussed for a loooong time.

Changing a practice is not the same as changing a doctrine.

The third question would be in regards to the statement that the change in position in regards to contraception disqualifies the Protestants from being a “true church”. What if the Protestant comes back and claims this is “not doctrine” but something else?

Did that protestant denomination at one time say that contraception was never okay?

I’m no scholar here, so I hope I didn’t poorly word this as to be incorrect in the actual teachings of the church.
If I find out I misspoke, I’ll correct myself as quickly as I can.

Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

This denomination could answer the Peter counter example you cite by simply claiming this was prior to him being a leader in the church.

I do see what you mean here.
A post-Church example would be where Peter was wrong about who he was eating with.

Gal 2:11
And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

 

[cazayoux]

But that does not answer my question, although you get brownie points for trying.

No worries. I like brownies.

I am.still waiting for the Protestant answer to the Matthew 18 question?

I’ll leave this for a protestant to answer.

Why would your benchmark of being a “true church” be correct while the benchmark of denomination X be incorrect? Because Catholicism says so is not an answer here.

I guess the search is for which church is the true church. We should listen to THAT church for how it defines what is right or wrong.
I see that you might look at this as circular reasoning, but this isn’t what I’m attempting.

Your point shows that since different churches define what is and is not ‘doctrine’ we cannot use the measure of ‘changing doctrine’ as a way to know which is the true church.
Agree?

Once we know, by some other measure, which church is the true church, we know that THAT church’s definition of doctrine is the correct one… and that doctrine should not change.

So there are two things I think we can look at.
1 - what other way do we approach finding the ‘true’ church
2 - by each church’s *own *definition of ‘doctrine’, has it ever changed a ‘doctrine’.

If we find a church that has, it only disqualifies itself as the true church.
We might still find many that, according to their own definition of ‘doctrine’, have not changed one. This means we need to find another way to approach finding the ‘true’ church from among these.

michel

 

[With_Questions]

Doctrine is a teaching that is specifically stated as authoritative and infallible from the chair of Peter. It could be a ratification from the chair regarding a council. Consider the trinity, actually the entire Nicene Creed, the canon of the bible, female priests…
Somebody smarter than I am would probably be able to give a better definitive answer on the requirements of recognizing a doctrine.

OK.

Then it would seem to me that this whole argument suffers because the comparisons made between Catholics and Protestants is not apples. Here is the flow as I understand it.

(1) Churches that change their teaching can not be true churches.
(2) Protestants have changed their teachings. The example cited was contraception.
(3) Catholicism has not changed its teachings.
(4) Upon questioning, this was narrowed down to has not changed its doctrine.
(5) Doctrine according to Catholicism is something spoken infallibly from the chair of Peter.

The problem here is that Protestants do not have an exact equivalent to “infallibly from the chair of Peter”. So we can never have an apples to apples comparison it would seem to me.

Maybe an apples to near apples would suffice. Maybe near apples for Protestants would be a core belief of a denomination, something somebody must believe in order to be a member.

So my question then would be which Protestant denomination has ever:
(1) In the past held opposition to contraception to such a high importance that it would be considered a core belief that a member must hold.
(2) Then later changed its position.

It would seem to me that if we can not come up with a match, that this whole line of inquiry is flawed.

These non-doctrinal things could be practices (such as married priests, or even the color of priestly vestments) or even issues that just have not been defined infallibly, yet.

Some issues have gone through quite a bit of council and discussion before being defined. Consider Limbo. It was not a doctrine, but studied and discussed for a loooong time.

Changing a practice is not the same as changing a doctrine.

So change in something that it not at the level of “infallibly declared from the chair of Peter that you must believe” is ok.

Then we have apples to apples because Protestants do this also.

 

[With_Questions]

I do see what you mean here.
A post-Church example would be where Peter was wrong about who he was eating with.

Gal 2:11
And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

Perhaps though this is Peter being wrong, but not rising to the level of gross historical misconduct.

Yeah, this is a quite subjective benchmark, but it does get back to my question on why such a high value on the benchmark of being 100% accurate on issues of doctrine when it seems to me that other benchmarks could arguably have equal credibility?

 

[mark_a]

Some protestants claim the church is invisible, not all as a blanket statement. There are many liturgical, apostolic teaching, non-Roman churches that see themselves as part of that original church that is very visible. Whether or not you agree they are part is irrelevant.

And many of the ones who believe the church is invisible will tell you that the Catholic Church is definitely not part of their “invisible church”.

Which would make the Catholic Church the visible church then, I guess.

 

[With_Questions]

I guess the search is for which church is the true church. We should listen to THAT church for how it defines what is right or wrong.
I see that you might look at this as circular reasoning, but this isn’t what I’m attempting.

Your point shows that since different churches define what is and is not ‘doctrine’ we cannot use the measure of ‘changing doctrine’ as a way to know which is the true church.
Agree?

Once we know, by some other measure, which church is the true church, we know that THAT church’s definition of doctrine is the correct one… and that doctrine should not change.

So there are two things I think we can look at.
1 - what other way do we approach finding the ‘true’ church
2 - by each church’s *own *definition of ‘doctrine’, has it ever changed a ‘doctrine’.

If we find a church that has, it only disqualifies itself as the true church.
We might still find many that, according to their own definition of ‘doctrine’, have not changed one. This means we need to find another way to approach finding the ‘true’ church from among these.

michel

Let me back up. I guess this is what I am asking. Probably in two parts.

First, why does one denomination, as in branch of Christianity, have to be the “true church”? To me that would logically consign the remaining denominations to a lesser status. And I would have to ask why God would seem to be playing favorites here? This is a biggie to me.

But if there were hypothetically to be a “true church” what would be the characteristics or benchmarks that would set this church apart so that one could easily identify it? I guess that is the second question.

I know that the Catholics point to their chain of popes which they claim go back to Peter. I’ll call this the benchmark of lineage.

I know that Protestants point to gross misconduct in certain places in this chain of popes and other places, for example killing other Christians for Christ, as perhaps a counter example. I’ll call this the benchmark of conduct. There might be other benchmarks you can come up with, but I’m not that creative.

Anyway, I know that Catholics then say, we don’t claim to be impeccible, just infallible. In other words, don’t use their benchmark, use ours. OK.

So this leaves me confused. Now I don’t really believe there is one denomination out there that is the “true church” because it really sounds to me like God playing favorites. But if I were to be persuaded to believe this, I still would not know how I would objectively identify this one true church such that I would know that I nailed the right one. Taking one denominations word for it doesn’t instill a high confidence level here.

Taking a break.

 

[iaskquestions]

Well, many questions flow from this statement. I will limit this to a couple.

If this statement is true, then at best only one denomination can be the “true church”.

Right.

So what if no denomination is absolutely error free in its teaching?
Isn’t this a logical possibility?

Yes. But as Catholics, we don’t believe this to be true in our case. It is because of the assurance that Christ gave. He said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock **I will build **my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

Christ is giving a guarantee. He will build. If it is he who builds, he cannot ever allow his church to teach any error. This has to be true, for he further adds, “**whatever **you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). It is from this scripture that we understand the charism of infallibility. The church cannot teach error at any point in history.

There is also another verse.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.” (Matthew 23:2-3) Imagine! Christ did not say, “do whatever they tell you … provided it is not sinful.” He said, “Do whatever they tell you.” This implies that when the Pharisees sit on “Moses’ seat” **God protects them **from teaching error, otherwise God would cause people to sin by obeying his own commandment. In the same way, we believe that when the Pope sits on “Peter’s seat” **God protects him **from teaching error.

But why is “no erroneous doctrine” the necessary benchmark for a “true church”?

From the above reasoning you can see why it is so. Also, there are some other scripture verses,

“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine” (1 Tim 1:3)

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess 2:15)

What if I were to turn around and say that
“For a church to be true it should be absolutely free of historical misconduct”? Why would my benchmark be false while your benchmark is true?

Because scripture does not support that view. Peter himself fell into “misconduct”.

“But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.” (Gal 2:11)

And simply because, any misconduct is sin. And we all sin, even the Pope.

 

[iaskquestions]

But hasn’t the Catholic Church done the same thing? Prior to Vatican 2, wasn’t there one understanding concerning the salvation of non-Catholics? And wasn’t this understanding corrected after Vatican 2?

Many people have misunderstood the teachings of Vatican 2. Vatican 2 did not contradict the previous teachings of the Church. See these links:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207fea3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3sb.asp

 

[iaskquestions]

What is doctrine in Catholicism and what distinguishes it from “not doctrine”?

(theadvent.org/liturgy/glossary.htm)

Doctrine – A belief or teaching of the Church. A body of instruction which expresses the Church’s faith.

Dogma – A particular interpretation of a doctrine. For example, the Church has always believed that our Lord is truly and really present in the Sacrament of the Altar. This is a doctrine. Transubstantiation, which is a explanation of how He is present, is a dogma.

Doctrine is different from discipline. There were various disciplines imposed at various times by the church. For eg. in the early church it was a discipline that women should veil themselves. (1 Cor 11:6). That was a discipline, not a doctrine. I believe it was imposed because it had got something to do with prostitution. Disciplines can be changed.

The third question would be in regards to the statement that the change in position in regards to contraception disqualifies the Protestants from being a “true church”. What if the Protestant comes back and claims this is “not doctrine” but something else?

As stated, doctrine is belief or teaching. Disciplines can be changed, not teachings or beliefs. I would really be amazed if Protestants said that they had only imposed a discipline (no contraception) at that time and now they’ve changed the discipline. They **condemned it **until 1930. It had to be doctrine.

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp

 

[With_Questions]

([As stated, doctrine is belief or teaching. Disciplines can be changed, not teachings or beliefs. I would really be amazed if Protestants said that they had only imposed a discipline (no contraception) at that time and now they’ve changed the discipline. They **condemned it **](As stated, doctrine is belief or teaching. Disciplines can be changed, not teachings or beliefs. I would really be amazed if Protestants said that they had only imposed a discipline (no contraception) at that time and now they’ve changed the discipline. They )until 1930. It had to be doctrine.
catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp
OK…I’m still a little confused because doctrine and dogma still seem similar. But maybe the distinctions are not important.

It is my understanding that only the doctrines and dogmas that are infallibly declared through the chair of St. Peter can not change and that these must be believed by Catholics. Is this correct?

It is also my understanding that if it is not infallibly declared through the chair of St. Peter, that it possibly could change. An example cited here was limbo. Is that correct?

If that is correct, then you can not have an apples-to-apples comparison since Protestants do not operate under these same assumptions.

The closest that Protestants have are core beliefs that usually are a part of a denominations statement of faith. These core beliefs are what the adherents must believe in order to be a member in good standing of a particular denomination.

Now are there any denominations out there that held their contraception beliefs to this level of importance? If there are, then you have an apples-to-near apples comparison. If there are not, then these two comparisons are not nearly close. I suspect that there are not any, but I am an amateur.

Anyway,I still can’t get past the idea that if one denomination is the church, then God is playing favorites. And that if hypothetically one denomination were the church, I wouldn’t know with certainty what is the correct benchmark to use here.

But nobody has directly answered the Matthew 18 question posed in this thread. There have been some non-answers that presumably did not understand the question. But I am not certain that it necessarily follows from your question that there must be one denomination that is the church anyway.

 

[With_Questions]

Many people have misunderstood the teachings of Vatican 2. Vatican 2 did not contradict the previous teachings of the Church. See these links:

catholic.com/thisrock/2002/0207fea3.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3sb.asp

There is one other logical possibility that I see that could explain this then.

To backtrack, the base teaching is “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church”. Now I don’t believe this because I am outside of the Catholic Church and believe I am saved. But anyway.

Now I have read quite a bit prior to coming here. I like to educate myself so at least I can appear to be smart. Whether I am smart is debatable.

I do get the distinct impression that prior to Vatical 2, this statement was generally interpreted to mean that unless you are a physical member of the Catholic church, your hopes of obtaining eternal life are dim. There might have been a few ways this could happen, but the probability is very low. Certainly for someone like me who actually understands Catholicism and still is not Catholic, my hopes for obtaining eternal life would be non-existent.

I got this impression from reading quotes of earlier popes and documents such as Trent where we read a number of anathemas that non-Catholics like myself fall under.

But apparantly for 1950 years, Catholics have taken the plain reading of “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church” (I would have taken it the same way) but the plain reading is wrong.

Vatican 2.0 apparantly sets the understanding of this statement straight.

However, we still have the statements of earlier popes and documents like Trent to deal with. It really seems that these items were created under the previous understanding of this doctrine.

So if Vatican 2 is correct and is not a change then:
(1) The statements of earlier popes are incorrect. Maybe they are not infallible statements though. Don’t ask me to find them now, but I have read them.
(2) The anathemas of Trent are incorrect. This would seem to be a problem because it is my understanding that Trent is infallible. But maybe my understanding is not correct and Trent is not infallible.
(3) Vatican 2 is not infallible.

Now I am sure that you have an option 4 where somehow these statements do not directly contradict. Whether your option makes any sense I don’t know.

But I am not sure how relevant this whole trail is anyway. But if your infallible dogmas don’t change, at the very minimum your understanding of infallible dogmas on this point have changed big time.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It must be remembered that scripture alone does not require something to be expressly written in the Bible if it can be deduced as a good and necessary consequence of what is said.

**In other words, though you call yourself a Protestant, you do NOT believe in Sola Scriptura, but in Scripture Plus Something.

Gotcha!**

 

[cazayoux]

Now I don’t really believe there is one denomination out there that is the “true church” because it really sounds to me like God playing favorites.

IF there is a one true church, that doesn’t mean that God is playing favorites.
If God only created one church and some in that church decide to start another one, it isn’t God making a decision here, it’s the individuals.

There IS only one church and it would not a denomination.

Jesus founded ONE church

Matt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

(Peter is the kepha upon which Christ builds His church) … not churches

**Acts 4:32 **
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.

1 Cor 1:10
agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you

The citing from 1 Cor here is key.
Would you say that Christianity today has divisions?
Which church was here before the divisions?

Did Luther reform a church or start his own?
The example from Luther, today taken to the extreme, is that if you don’t like something in your church, leave it and start a new one.
This goes direction against the scripture we see above.

Without history, you might only see 33,000 denominations that are all Christians.
With the light of history, you can see that this is the result of fracturing from *the one true church * and is against scripture.

michel

 

[iaskquestions]

So if Vatican 2 is correct and is not a change then:
(1) The statements of earlier popes are incorrect. Maybe they are not infallible statements though. Don’t ask me to find them now, but I have read them.
(2) The anathemas of Trent are incorrect. This would seem to be a problem because it is my understanding that Trent is infallible. But maybe my understanding is not correct and Trent is not infallible.
(3) Vatican 2 is not infallible.

I’m no expert on Vatican 2 and the history of the church. But there are some guys here on the forum who know a lot about this. Perhaps they can give you a better understanding about Vatican 2.

 

[kentuckyliz]

Nowhere. A city on a hill cannot be hid.

 

[ralphinal]

I am no expert either, but I do understand how there is no conflict.

First, we must understand how one can be outside of the Church. There are two basic ways: they were never in it and they left it. If we look at the second way first, did they leave knowing fully what they were leaving? If yes, they are in serious trouble. If no, they are not in as much trouble. Back to the first way. Are they not members through no fault of their own? If yes, God judges them as he does all who had no way of being a part of the old covenent (see Paul in Romans, based on natural law). If no, they could have known, they are in trouble.

Now, when the doctrine was put forth, it was thought that the whole world knew the Truth of Christ and his Church. We should note that this was clearly wrong, as the Americas had not been discovered by Euopeans and the job of teaching in Asia and Africa was spotty at best. It was thought at that time that anyone who was not Catholic KNEW that they should be and CHOSE not to. There is the teaching in a nutshell.

Skip forward. We now have people born into Non-Catholic, non-Orthodox faiths that will not learn the Truth at home. Are they guilty of choosing to be outside of the Church? Further, we understand that most Baptisms are valid. These people would therefore be part of the Body of Christ though they may be separated from the fullness of it. We know that God has mercy on whom he chooses, so we cannot deny that he may be merciful on those in this state.

Trent spoke of people who knew the Truth but prefered the Lie. Most non-Catholics are not in this state.

The Popes who write about no salvation are quite correct. But, we must understand that like all sin there is a level of culpability that must be reached.

I hope this helps

 

[cazayoux]

… and believe I am saved.

It might be important to discuss why you say this.
Are you of the opinion that you are once saved, always saved?

michel

 

[With_Questions]

IF there is a one true church, that doesn’t mean that God is playing favorites.
If God only created one church and some in that church decide to start another one, it isn’t God making a decision here, it’s the individuals.

There IS only one church and it would not a denomination.

Jesus founded ONE church

Matt 16:18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

(Peter is the kepha upon which Christ builds His church) … not churches

**Acts 4:32 **
The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common.

1 Cor 1:10
agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you

The citing from 1 Cor here is key.
Would you say that Christianity today has divisions?
Which church was here before the divisions?

Did Luther reform a church or start his own?
The example from Luther, today taken to the extreme, is that if you don’t like something in your church, leave it and start a new one.
This goes direction against the scripture we see above.

Without history, you might only see 33,000 denominations that are all Christians.
With the light of history, you can see that this is the result of fracturing from *the one true church * and is against scripture.

michel

This is a good answer. Good answers make me think. I like to think.

I could however fact check you on your claim of 33,000 denominations. However your point still stands even if you use a more realistic number.

To ask the right questions I think I would have to backtrack to a subject that I always found somewhat boring. I sort of would like it if Protestants could answer this question too.

I know that Protestants quibble on whether “this rock” in Matthew 16 was Peter or something else. But to take a step back, I wonder how Jesus designed the church.

Did He have a design in mind? Did He only have a design for local organizations with pastors, elders and the like? Or did Jesus have a central design with one central point of leadership that could enforce one creed? And did the church initially follow this design of one central point of leadership?

The next question assumes the answer to the above is that Jesus had a centralized design for the church. This question would be whether there is one and only one denomination today that can possibly claim to be this centralized church? I ask this because I suspect if this were an Orthodox forum, they would claim to be this church?

The final question though I don’t think has an easy answer and is hard to ask correctly. I wasted three paragraphs trying to ask it, so I will condense it.

The question assumes that Jesus had a centralized design for the church and that one and only one denomination today can possibly claim to be this centralized church. Does it follow that God must favor that one denomination today? I’m not sure that it does for a number of reasons but anyway.