Is The Church Divided?

[FireDragon76]

The RCC may have changed her approach but she did not change her view. Her anathamas still stand, and her dogmas which ain't too promising for protestants have not changed. That is just the way it is.

From what I have heard, both our churches have agreed to lift the anathemas on each other.

 

[dzheremi]

No, they're not. A member of certain denominations may insist that he does not believe in the concept (although, as explained already, those bodies accept the concept of the Communion of Saints and the Body of Christ which amount to about the same thing as the Invisible Church). But the terms are in use among other denominations and whether or not anyone agrees with these terms or concepts, they are well-known and widely used to describe the difference between the local or regional church organization where the sacraments are administered, etc. and the wider concept of the totality of all true believers of whatever place or time, living or dead.

You wrote earlier that this distinction is just the way that Protestants talk about the communion of the saints, but now that appears not to be the case. The communion of the saints is the communion of those who are in the Church on earth and those who are in the Church in heaven. They're not divided into two separated churches just because one has more members than the other, or because one is here now as opposed to having been here at an earlier date (the faith and the Church are timeless and eternal, so human-created time spans don't matter). Particularly in the context of this topic, those of us who are in the Church on earth now are not privileged at all over those who are not simply by virtue of the fact that we happen to be walking about (if anything, it could be argued to be the other way around, right? The departed saints have already run the race to its completion; they've already gone to where we hope to go, and we look up to them as great examples of how we should strive to be). So if you separate them from us or us from them, then you cannot be talking about the communion of saints anymore, because by entertaining that separation it wouldn't be a communion anymore. You can't have communion in two separated churches. The Church is one, not just across the world but beyond it.

 

[Albion]

You wrote earlier that this distinction is just the way that Protestants talk about the communion of the saints, but now that appears not to be the case.

What I said was this: It is closer to what you think of as the Communion of Saints....

That should be sufficient to show anyone that we are not speaking of the local and/or denominational parish in which corporate worship occurs, the sacraments are administered, and etc.

 

[dzheremi]

What I said was this: It is closer to what you think of as the Communion of Saints....

Yeah, and now I'm responding that it isn't, because it isn't. It seems rather that it is closer to what you think that I think the communion of saints is than to what it actually is.

That should be sufficient to show anyone that we are not speaking of the local and/or denominational parish in which corporate worship occurs, the sacraments are administered, and etc.

Okay. We're apparently talking about different things, and I have nothing to say about whatever distinction you are making that I don't even understand.

 

[salt-n-light]

Or both Catholics and Protestants are incorrect, but in different ways.

Catholics are incorrect in saying (to the extent that they say this) that their Pope is the leader of all Christians and the sole successor to St. Peter, and hence it is a necessity that all be in union with him if they wish to be in communion with St. Peter, and Protestants are incorrect (again, to the extent that they say this) in saying that the Church has no concrete, earthly existence, but is instead some kind of cosmic/dematerialized communion not borne out in reality by the communion of churches united under their local bishops, and their bishops by their mutual recognition of one another at the synodal and patriarchal level.

Lol I’ve heard no Protestant describe it like that

 

[Chris V++]

Lol I’ve heard no Protestant describe it like that

'A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.' -Wikipedia

 

[salt-n-light]

'A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man.' -Wikipedia

Still never heard a Protestant describe their church as such

 

[Chris V++]

Still never heard a Protestant describe their church as such

Me neither, but we're expected to defend that position apparently because he keeps on insisting that that is the protestant experience or perspective. That's why it's a straw man argument.

 

[bcbsr]

I wrote: "Christianity is about a personal relationship with God, not an earthly institution. It's not a matter of material things like eating and drinking. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" Rom 14:17"

You responded:

I beg your pardon?

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." (John 6:53)

And that's an example of the fallacy of institutionalized Christianity, confusing shadow and substance, rejecting Paul's teachings and misconstruing Jesus' meaning. It's much along the same lines of the Circumcision inflating religious ceremony to the point of idolatry.

 

[hedrick]

Lol I’ve heard no Protestant describe it like that

Protestants don't normally say that the Church has no concrete existence in this world. The accusation that we don't seems to come from the idea that the Church must be identified as a single human organization. Of course Protestants generally don't agree with that, since we observe that as a matter of simple fact it isn't true, and wouldn't be even without Protestants.

I don't think it's accurate to say that the result is that the Church is invisible. It's perfectly visible. What is true, however, is that its boundaries aren't precisely defined. CF says Mormons and JWs aren't part of it. Some people have asserted that my church isn't part of it. Traditional Protestants have sometimes said that the Catholic church isn't part of it. I think this kind of infighting is a mistake.

This visible church with gray areas isn't the same thing as the set of people who are truly in Christ. That's sometimes been referred to as the invisible Church. I agree that there's reasonable presumption that anyone who has been baptized is a part of the latter, but in fact it's not always the case. There are also people whom I'm sure Jesus counts as part of his body who for some reason aren't part of the visible Church. There are both good and bad reasons why someone might be in this situation.

 

[Albion]

Protestants don't normally say that the Church has no concrete existence in this world. The accusation that we don't seems to come from the idea that the Church must be identified as a single human organization. Of course Protestants generally don't agree with that, since we observe that as a matter of simple fact it isn't true, and wouldn't be even without Protestants.

That has been at the heart of the issue as the discussion has progressed in this particular thread, which is surprising to me considering that the member was saying that he didn't understand the concept but he was opposed to it!

I don't think it's accurate to say that the result is that the Church is invisible. It's perfectly visible.

That is why we explained the two in tandem, so as not to be giving the impression that the church is one or the other but cannot be both.

This visible church with gray areas isn't the same thing as the set of people who are truly in Christ. That's sometimes been referred to as the invisible Church. I agree that there's reasonable presumption that anyone who has been baptized is a part of the latter, but in fact it's not always the case. There are also people whom I'm sure Jesus counts as part of his body who for some reason aren't part of the visible Church.

Agreed. That is the reason for including the point that the "members" of the so-called Invisible Church are known only to God.

However, that clarification often gets translated by members of any of the "One True (and Only Real) Church" denominations as a claim that all beliefs are equally good, right, and acceptable to God.

 

[Chris V++]

The idea was that the protestants and Catholics reading this thread we're to be slow walked to the realization that we are out of communion with the saints of the real one true legitimate holy and apostolic church, living or dead, and consequently aren't in any legitimate communion whatsoever, visible or invisible. (Of course no judgement is being made, or at least verbalized about our salvation as individuals.) Better luck next time.

 

[dzheremi]

Still never heard a Protestant describe their church as such

Alright. Plenty of others have. (see post #98, not written by me; it's a very common idea)

 

[Albion]

Alright. Plenty of others have. (see post #98, not written by me; it's a very common idea)

You are saying that the poster in #98 agreed with the claim that there are such Christians. We have no one here who has asserted the idea itself, though--the idea that is supposedly so common (!)

 

[concretecamper]

From what I have heard, both our churches have agreed to lift the anathemas on each other.

Protestant communities anathematizing people, I don't think so.

 

[~Zao~]

Protestant communities anathematizing people, I don't think so.

What makes you so sure? Does forgiveness and condemnation only belong to Catholics too?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't think recognizing that at some level those outside of the Church constitute as Christians, contradicts the notion that there is one true Church on earth? The Catholic position is pretty clear, as is the position of all those Churches before Protestant Churches existed, that their Church is the one true Church and membership with them is crucial for being considered fully and wholly part of the Church.

It is a matter of knowing who is closer to you than who is not. The Protestant is obviously closer to the Catholic than he is to the Atheist. The Protestant is closer to the Catholic than he is to the Orthodox.

That being said, the option you present as the Protestant option comes with it's own difficulties. One in particular is how you determine who represents what part of Jesus' Church on earth and who constitutes it. Can it only be Protestant Churches, if so what ones, all or only some? The ELCA and the LCMS? ACNA and the ECUSA? I think many would divide between conservative minded Churches and liberal minded Churches.

This sort of, what I would call, 'universalist' perspective of Church doesn't solve anything. It just makes us wonder why God lets his body break itself apart into a million fragmentary pieces. Also, don't get me wrong, Orthodox are not free of accusations of tearing at each other, especially given recent events, but the unity is more powerful than anything seen in Protestantism.

 

[Albion]

That being said, the option you present as the Protestant option comes with it's own difficulties. One in particular is how you determine who represents what part of Jesus' Church on earth and who constitutes it. Can it only be Protestant Churches, if so what ones, all or only some? The ELCA and the LCMS? ACNA and the ECUSA? I think many would divide between conservative minded Churches and liberal minded Churches.

IMO, that isn't implied at all. You are filling in details which come from your own theological perspective but which are not inherent in the concepts themselves that we have been discussing.

This sort of, what I would call, 'universalist' perspective of Church doesn't solve anything.

...and that is not part of the concept.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

IMO, that isn't implied at all. You are filling in details which come from your own theological perspective but which are not inherent in the concepts themselves that we have been discussing.

...and that is not part of the concept.

But how is my perspective wrong exactly? It seems to me we have two options offered to us by the OP.

1. We believe our particular Church is the one true Church.
2. We believe there is no one Church which is the true Church, but all reflect Christ to some degree or another.

I see significant problems in the latter which I simply pointed out. How do you as an Anglican recognize non Anglican Churches as legitimately or fully Christian or part of the visible Church?

 

[Chris V++]

How do you as an Anglican recognize non Anglican Churches as legitimately or fully Christian?

I as a non Anglican recognize Anglican churches as fully Christian when they have Christians in attendance, since the Christian church is comprised of, you know, Christians. Does that help? Or aren't Anglicans themselves true Christians?