Christian Forums

QuoteAs in, the visible and clear teachings of the visible Catholic Church.

Stephanie mentioned an important point when she used the word "visible" to describe Christ's Church.  Catholics maintain the belief that Christ's Church is full of light and contrary to gnosticism; visible.

Matthew 5:13-16
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.  You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

Matthew 24:27
For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

John 1:5
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

John 9:5
While I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

Acts 13:47
For this is what the Lord has commanded us: " 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.' "

Ephesians 5:13
But everything exposed by the light becomes visible

So where is the evidence from scripture for Luther's idea of an invisible church?

blessings

QuoteAs in the Universal Church of Christ?

FTL

The Early Christian Church was one or "Catholic" until 1054 AD.  Believe me, I sympathize with the Orthodox Churches and the Reformation - both movements arose for good reasons - I simply hope that we can all reconcile one day, before Christ returns.

blessings

Quote from: Gary on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:42:04
Why are not some Catholic politicians who defy the will of the Catholic Church denied communion?

It depends on the condition of their heart / conscious - only the person and God can really know.  Many politicians believe that the law includes Christians and nonChristians and should protect the rights of all people; only God knows if this is the correct mindset.

It is true that there are some vocal priests that refuse to serve the Eucharist to politicians that publicly support policies that are not inline with the Catholic Church; however, the Vatican has been clear about individuals, ultimately being responsible for their own actions so it is a dicey subject.

I tend to believe that people are responsible for their own decisions and whether or not their heart is in the proper place to receive the Eucharist. 

blessings 

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:36:56


The Early Christian Church was one or "Catholic" until 1054 AD.  Believe me, I sympathize with the Orthodox Churches and the Reformation - both movements arose for good reasons - I simply hope that we can all reconcile one day, before Christ returns.

blessings

I appreciate your viewpoint. 

It seems to me that the unity of Christians, which I also pray will occur-- and I am hoping for it in my lifetime, depends mainly on the Pope.

I believe John Paul II said he too hopes for Christian unity, but it would have to be under him.  More recently, Pope Benedict said that 1) Protestant assembliages cannot be called churches (I agree with him there) 2) Orthodox churches, which he said are churches, are "defective" because they do not submit to the authority of the Pope.

So, to Catholics, Christian unity depends on submission to the Bishop of Rome.  Orthodox did not buy into this 1000 years ago, they are not likely to buy into it now.  On the other hand, the "Vicar of Christ" can bring Christian unity very quickly if he would renounce his claim for universal authority.  If he did, the RCC church would be in unity with the Orthodox churches, and many of our Protestant friends would want to join one of the five patriarchates.

QuoteI appreciate your viewpoint. 

It seems to me that the unity of Christians, which I also pray will occur-- and I am hoping for it in my lifetime, depends mainly on the Pope.

I believe John Paul II said he too hopes for Christian unity, but it would have to be under him.  More recently, Pope Benedict said that 1) Protestant assemblages cannot be called churches (I agree with him there) 2) Orthodox churches, which he said are churches, are "defective" because they do not submit to the authority of the Pope.

So, to Catholics, Christian unity depends on submission to the Bishop of Rome.  Orthodox did not buy into this 1000 years ago, they are not likely to buy into it now.  On the other hand, the "Vicar of Christ" can bring Christian unity very quickly if he would renounce his claim for universal authority.  If he did, the RCC church would be in unity with the Orthodox churches, and many of our Protestant friends would want to join one of the five patriarchates.

I understand that the divide seems wide, but I still pray that Christ will unite us - I think there is pride involved in all three camps.

My main problems with the Pope renouncing the chair of Peter; and the church moving toward patriarchal authority (beyond the obvious fact that I am Roman Catholic) is the lack of agreement between the patriarchs and their habit of submitting to secular leaders.  The last time all the patriarchs agreed on a council was under the leadership of the Pope; it is a myth to believe that agreement will occur with less centralized authority.  Also, The Russian patriarch is hardly the only church authority to consistently submit to his respective secular government - he is only the most notorious.

So I also appreciate your point of view, but don't you think that there is a bit more to the whole divide then the supposed pride of the Pope?

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:52:24

Quote from: Gary on Wed Sep 05, 2007 - 06:42:04
Why are not some Catholic politicians who defy the will of the Catholic Church denied communion?

It depends on the condition of their heart / conscious - only the person and God can really know.  Many politicians believe that the law includes Christians and nonChristians and should protect the rights of all people; only God knows if this is the correct mindset.

It is true that there are some vocal priests that refuse to serve the Eucharist to politicians that publicly support policies that are not inline with the Catholic Church; however, the Vatican has been clear about individuals, ultimately being responsible for their own actions so it is a dicey subject.

I tend to believe that people are responsible for their own decisions and whether or not their heart is in the proper place to receive the Eucharist. 

blessings 

Hasn't Benedict said something about those who support abortion being denied communion?

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:29:50Catholics maintain the belief that Christ's Church is full of light and contrary to gnosticism; visible.
.
.
.

So where is the evidence from scripture for Luther's idea of an invisible church?

I would like to respond to this.  I recall being perplexed the first time I heard a Catholic or Orthodox make the statement that Protestants and "Post-Protestants" (may not be a real term... but, since some descended from the Protestant movement take exception to being labeled "Protestant") believe in an "invisible church."  I have never thought that.

Perhaps Luther, Calvin, and others (as has been suggested) did proclaim an idea of "the invisible church"... but, that's neither here nor there for me.

I believe the church is just as visible and "in the flesh" (if you will) as Catholics and Orthodox do.  The church is just divided.

Yet, an autonomous church that has elders, deacons, ministers, active lay members, that functions in this world as an entity that strives to bring the Gospel of Christ to the world... is just as visible and just as much in the flesh (as opposed to Gnostic notions) as a Catholic or Orthodox parish.

I believe the Church is visible but divided.

And, I realize that goes against the Catholic/Orthodox notion that the Church is kept free from division and error within itself.  But, I must disagree with that point.

That's not to say that division is an acceptable thing.  But, it's a fact of life, unfortunately.

JMO  

Quote from: DCR on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 09:10:03

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 01:29:50Catholics maintain the belief that Christ's Church is full of light and contrary to gnosticism; visible.
.
.
.

So where is the evidence from scripture for Luther's idea of an invisible church?

I would like to respond to this.  I recall being perplexed the first time I heard a Catholic or Orthodox make the statement that Protestants and "Post-Protestants" (may not be a real term... but, since some descended from the Protestant movement take exception to being labeled "Protestant") believe in an "invisible church."  I have never thought that.

Perhaps Luther, Calvin, and others (as has been suggested) did proclaim an idea of "the invisible church"... but, that's neither here nor there for me.

I believe the church is just as visible and "in the flesh" (if you will) as Catholics and Orthodox do.  The church is just divided.

Yet, an autonomous church that has elders, deacons, ministers, active lay members, that functions in this world as an entity that strives to bring the Gospel of Christ to the world... is just as visible and just as much in the flesh (as opposed to Gnostic notions) as a Catholic or Orthodox parish.

I believe the Church is visible but divided.

And, I realize that goes against the Catholic/Orthodox notion that the Church is kept free from division and error within itself.  But, I must disagree with that point.

That's not to say that division is an acceptable thing.  But, it's a fact of life, unfortunately.

JMO 

The Catholic Church maintains that the Church is free from division and error within itself?  Why were most of the books of the NT written? Council of Trent anyone?

Quote from: Gary on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 09:13:35The Catholic Church maintains that the Church is free from division and error within itself?  Why were most of the books of the NT written? Council of Trent anyone?

I don't want to speak for them if that isn't accurate.  But, I at least remember CDHealy epressing that from the Orthodox perspective, and I assume that it may be true of the Catholic Church as well, but I could be wrong.

There was once discussion about this, and I think it was Ken (the Catholic convert... "s1n-"<something> was his handle) who said, if I recall, that one can only divide "away from" the Church.  According to this belief, it is not possible for schism to happen within the Church, and both parts still be considered the "Church."

But, this is a good question to put to the Catholics for clarification.

Quote from: DCR on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 09:10:03
Perhaps Luther, Calvin, and others (as has been suggested) did proclaim an idea of "the invisible church"... but, that's neither here nor there for me.


I believe the church is just as visible and "in the flesh" (if you will) as Catholics and Orthodox do.  The church is just divided.


Yet, an autonomous church that has elders, deacons, ministers, active lay members, that functions in this world as an entity that strives to bring the Gospel of Christ to the world... is just as visible and just as much in the flesh (as opposed to Gnostic notions) as a Catholic or Orthodox parish.

Thank you for making this distinction.  The church must be physical as well as spiritual.

Quote
I believe the Church is visible but divided.

And, I realize that goes against the Catholic/Orthodox notion that the Church is kept free from division and error within itself.  But, I must disagree with that point.

That's not to say that division is an acceptable thing.  But, it's a fact of life, unfortunately.

JMO  

The problem here is that if the church is the Bride of Christ and the body of Christ, it cannot be divided. just as Christ cannot be divided. 

Now, believers can be divided but the church cannot be.

If you are right, then there is more than one true church.  (You might say there is
one church, but it is divided.  That seems like more than one to me).

If Luther is right, there is one church, but it is not a physical one (thus the invisible church).

Respectfully submitted,

trifecta       

And, I think this is the real core issue to be pondered.

Of course, Christ cannot be divided.

But, to go one step further with the conclusion, "therefore His Body, the Church, cannot be divided." is, well, going one step further.  And, I can neither prove nor disprove that conclusion.  I just have no compelling reason to necessarily agree with it.

By the way, if you separate out the "believers" from the Church, saying that they can be divided while the Church cannot be, aren't the believers the only "visible" component of the Church? (just to go back to the visible/invisible discussion)

If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

Quote from: DCR on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 10:19:48
And, I think this is the real core issue to be pondered.

Of course, Christ cannot be divided.

But, to go one step further with the conclusion, "therefore His Body, the Church, cannot be divided." is, well, going one step further.  And, I can neither prove nor disprove that conclusion.  I just have no compelling reason to necessarily agree with it.

Good question.  Believers, though, have free will and therefore, can divide.
Not my best answer, but the best one I can think of. 

Quote
By the way, if you separate out the "believers" from the Church, saying that they can be divided while the Church cannot be, aren't the believers the only "visible" component of the Church? (just to go back to the visible/invisible discussion)

If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

I guess that bricks, mortar, and icons would be left would be visibly left!  Of course, there would still be Jesus, the Holy Spirit, truth, the saints, but they would not be visible.

QuoteIf you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

If you removed all the believers - the Church or Tradition would still remain.  It is the same with the Bible, even if there was no one around to believe in it, God's Word would still remain because it is truth.

blessings

Quote from: DCR on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 10:19:48
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

History.  The past.  The church is gone.  bye bye.

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:16:07

QuoteIf you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

If you removed all the believers - the Church or Tradition would still remain.  It is the same with the Bible, even if their was no one around to believe in it, God's Word would still remain because it is truth.

Blesssings

That's an interesting response.  In such a catastrophic scenario, you would still define that believerless Church and tradition as the visible, physical Church?

What of the apostolic succession?  (I know we're getting carried away with hypotheticals now.)

Could some pagan in the distant future uncover the ruins of such a Church, find the Bible, decide he believes, and then pick up where the Church left off?  Up until that point, the Church had become history, a memory, without living members to physically carry on the traditions... an invisible Church, if you will? 

Sounds like what some would term, a "restoration."  

Now, I'm rambling.  Thanks for the thoughts; these are things to ponder.   

Quote from: Gary on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:17:37

Quote from: DCR on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 10:19:48
If you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

History.  The past.  The church is gone.  bye bye.

And what about the Bible?

Quote from: DCR on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:37:54

Quote from: ravenlorre on Sat Sep 08, 2007 - 14:16:07

QuoteIf you remove all believers from the Church, then what else is left of the visible, physical entity that is the Church?

If you removed all the believers - the Church or Tradition would still remain.  It is the same with the Bible, even if their was no one around to believe in it, God's Word would still remain because it is truth.

Blesssings

That's an interesting response.  In such a catastrophic scenario, you would still define that believerless Church and tradition as the visible, physical Church?

What of the apostolic succession?  (I know we're getting carried away with hypotheticals now.)

Could some pagan in the distant future uncover the ruins of such a Church, find the Bible, decide he believes, and then pick up where the Church left off?  Up until that point, the Church had become history, a memory, without living members to physically carry on the traditions... an invisible Church, if you will? 

Sounds like kind of a "restoration."   

Now, I'm rambling.  Thanks for the thoughts; these are things to ponder.   

I agree that this conversation is getting way out there, but if the pagan converts to Christianity and chooses to follow Holy Orders he would pick up where the last Pope left off.

blessings

Wait a minute... are you saying that if ALL the believers of any kind disappeared off the earth... the next man who read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believed it, would automatically be a Catholic, and deemed head of the Church in the Vatican?

(Taking up where the last Pope left off??) 

That is a stretch.  But, maybe I am too tired to think.  It's been a very long day. Good night. 

"Doubting the Catholic Church is Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human"

I have to say... I don't have any doubts that many Catholics are Christians, but I do very much have doubts about whether or not the "CHURCH" system is.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 00:01:03
"Doubting the Catholic Church is Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human"

I have to say... I don't have any doubts that many Catholics are Christians, but I do very much have doubts about whether or not the "CHURCH" system is.

I thought that signature was interesting too, because it implies to doubt Catholic Church is to doubt the Word of God.

That was an absolutely amazingly nutty concept up there.

If you somehow remove all the believers, you still have the church?

Mmm-hmm.

Of course there are those who are safe with the Lord, who would make up part of the church, if you want to think of it that way.  All of God's people who ever were, you know. 

But as far as people still here in the flesh --

So, suppose you could wipe out every believer?  What if a massive plague got them?

How would the church continue?

Quote from: kensington on Sun Sep 09, 2007 - 02:16:42
Wait a minute... are you saying that if ALL the believers of any kind disappeared off the earth... the next man who read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believed it, would automatically be a Catholic, and deemed head of the Church in the Vatican?

(Taking up where the last Pope left off??) 

That is a stretch.  But, maybe I am too tired to think.  It's been a very long day. Good night. 

No - but the next man who read the Bible and Tradition and was led by the Holy Spirit to carry on the Church that Jesus set up upon Peter could theoretically, continue the Holy Orders and continue the Apostolic succession that started in the Early Church.  Understandably, this an impossible situation because their will always be Catholic Christians on Earth.

I am trying to get the point across that following the Tradition of Holy Orders (followed by the Latin Rite churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches), which allows a priest to serve the Eucharist; is the primary qualifier for a Church to be considered Apostolic.

blessings

Quote
That was an absolutely amazingly nutty concept up there.

It is only "nutty" in light of the Reformation - before Luther, the Church was viewed as completely visible by all Christians.  The fact is, before the Reformation, you were considered a heretic if you did not hold Tradition and the Bible as your authority.  As early as the 2nd century - Confession and adherence to the Apostle's Creed (Tradition) and Baptism by full immersion or sprinkling (Bible / Tradition), defined a person as a Christian.

QuoteOf course there are those who are safe with the Lord, who would make up part of the church, if you want to think of it that way.  All of God's people who ever were, you know.

I am glad that you recognize people who have passed away in Christ as still apart of the Body - I agree that they would still make up part of the Church. 

QuoteBut as far as people still here in the flesh -- So, suppose you could wipe out every believer?  What if a massive plague got them?  How would the church continue?

Same way it continues today - adherence to the Bible and Tradition.  Again, the situation is impossible - the day that all Christians are in Heaven is the day the World ends IMO.

blessings

QuoteI thought that signature was interesting too, because it implies to doubt Catholic Church is to doubt the Word of God.

If I am being too subtle, I apologize; my quote is not intended to imply anything; I thought I was being perfectly clear.

blessings

I'm trying to imagine the Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of Heaven and Earth and everything in between, founding and building His church upon Peter. 

Aye.  Yup.

Okay.

How could the Apostolic Succession thing be passed on, so that the hypothetical Last Guy On Earth who supposedly read his Bible and became the Last Priest On Earth, could actually perform the incantations and make the bread and wine into the body & blood?  Seems like some who hold to the necessity of Apostolic Succession would be a little dismayed if there were no bishop around to lay hands on the man.

I contend this --

If no one were around to inform that Last Dude about all those lovely traditions that seem every bit as important and weighty as the Word of God to you guys --

If all he did was read the Bibles he found lying about the echoing empty places he wandered --

What he'd be after he committed to Christ would look a lot more like a fellow in one of our Sunday morning pews, than in one of yours.

Quote
I'm trying to imagine the Lord Jesus Christ, Creator of Heaven and Earth and everything in between, founding and building His church upon Peter.

Anymore impossible / unreasonable than God bringing his Son into the world through a virgin, peasant girl?

"Aye.  Yup. Okay."

QuoteHow could the Apostolic Succession thing be passed on, so that the hypothetical Last Guy On Earth who supposedly read his Bible and became the Last Priest On Earth, could actually perform the incantations and make the bread and wine into the body & blood?  Seems like some who hold to the necessity of Apostolic Succession would be a little dismayed if there were no bishop around to lay hands on the man.

Yup - you're right!  The last guy on Earth situation is impossible - after all, the guy won't even be baptized.  Yet, the Bible and Tradition will never pass away.  Besides the fact that no man can change bread and wine into the blood and body of Christ even using the most creative incantations - a true priest has to rely on God to do that.

QuoteIf no one were around to inform that Last Dude about all those lovely traditions that seem every bit as important and weighty as the Word of God to you guys --

I guess he would have to be able to read in order to understand church dogma and the Bible

QuoteIf all he did was read the Bibles he found lying about the echoing empty places he wandered -- What he'd be after he committed to Christ would look a lot more like a fellow in one of our Sunday morning pews, than in one of yours.

History does not agree with you on this point and neither do I, but I appreciated reading your opinion

How lovely of you.

(Perhaps invocation fits better than incantation.)

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 02:27:11

Quote from: kensington on Sun Sep 09, 2007 - 02:16:42
Wait a minute... are you saying that if ALL the believers of any kind disappeared off the earth... the next man who read the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believed it, would automatically be a Catholic, and deemed head of the Church in the Vatican?

(Taking up where the last Pope left off??) 

That is a stretch.  But, maybe I am too tired to think.  It's been a very long day. Good night. 

No - but the next man who read the Bible and Tradition and was led by the Holy Spirit to carry on the Church that Jesus set up upon Peter could theoretically, continue the Holy Orders and continue the Apostolic succession that started in the Early Church.  Understandably, this an impossible situation because their will always be Catholic Christians on Earth.

I am trying to get the point across that following the Tradition of Holy Orders (followed by the Latin Rite churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches), which allows a priest to serve the Eucharist; is the primary qualifier for a Church to be considered Apostolic.

blessings

Why did the RCC and the EOC leave the first and only apostolic church, the Coptic Church?

If this question has been answered, I'm sorry, but I did not have time to look at all the pages this morning.

What is the Roman Catholic Church's teaching about the return of Christ?  Is it premillenial, amillenial, or postmillenial?  

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 02:45:07

QuoteI thought that signature was interesting too, because it implies to doubt Catholic Church is to doubt the Word of God.

If I am being too subtle, I apologize; my quote is not intended to imply anything; I thought I was being perfectly clear.

blessings

The only thing thats clear to me is its wrong.

Would it make us feel better if the statement was this:

"Doubting non-Catholic Christian Churches to be Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human."





CSloan, I think you might be misunderstanding the analogy there.  I don't see an implication about denying the Word of God.  It's a simple analogy that, from ravenlorre's point of view, the Catholic Church is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.

It would be like saying that your congregation is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.

So, to doubt that your church is Christian is akin to denying that Adam and Even were human.

Quote from: DCR on Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 09:18:33
Would it make us feel better if the statement was this:

"Doubting non-Catholic Christian Churches to be Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human."





CSloan, I think you might be misunderstanding the analogy there.  I don't see an implication about denying the Word of God.  It's a simple analogy that, from ravenlorre's point of view, the Catholic Church is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.

It would be like saying that your congregation is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.

So, to doubt that your church is Christian is akin to denying that Adam and Even were human.

When I talked to James, he saw his signature as a violation of the forum rules. I find it offensive and divisive.

Quote from: DCR on Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 09:18:33
Would it make us feel better if the statement was this:

"Doubting non-Catholic Christian Churches to be Christian is akin to denying Adam and Eve were human."





CSloan, I think you might be misunderstanding the analogy there.  I don't see an implication about denying the Word of God.  It's a simple analogy that, from ravenlorre's point of view, the Catholic Church is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.

It would be like saying that your congregation is Christian as Adam and Eve were human.

So, to doubt that your church is Christian is akin to denying that Adam and Even were human.

Thank you for explaining my quote, DCR - you are exactly right.  The only way you could understand my quote in the manner in which cslaon chooses to understand it - as denying God's Word, is if you believed the Catholic Church is not Christian.  Since csloan has made no bones about his belief that the Catholic Church is a nonChristian cult - and he knows that Adam and Eve were human - he has no other choice, but to incorrectly conclude that I must be denying the Bible.

Sorry csloan, you have allowed your own distorted viewpoint to interfere with a simple analogy.  Once again, according to this site, the Catholic Church fits the definition of a Christian Church, unlike our World wide Church of God friend who is currently teaching doctrine on this thread, without opposition from you (at least I haven't read any oppositon from you so far).

blessings

Quote from: janine on Mon Sep 10, 2007 - 04:34:40
How lovely of you.

(Perhaps invocation fits better than incantation.)

Thank you for clarifying.  A comparison would be declaring that you meet each week for Sabbot instead of Sunday fellowship and worship.

blessings

QuoteWhen I talked to James, he saw his signature as a violation of the forum rules. I find it offensive and divisive.

Who is James?

blessings