Non-Catholic's view of RC Catechism

[Dark_Lite]

Clement of Alexandria
"For it is not now the place, but the assemblage of the elect, that I call the Church." (The Stromata, 7:5)

Valid for consideration.

Lactantius:
"In the next place, Solomon was never called the son of God, but the son of David; and the house which he built was not firmly established, as the Church, which is the true temple of God, which does not consist of walls, but of the heart and faith of the men who believe on Him, and are called faithful....

Also valid for consideration.

Augustine refers to the invisible church:
"But the enemies of this brotherly love, whether they are openly without, or appear to be within, are false Christians, and antichrists. For when they have found an opportunity, they go out, as it is written: 'A man wishing to separate himself from his friends, seeketh opportunities.' But even if occasions are wanting, while they seem to be within, they are severed from that invisible bond of love. Whence St. John says, 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for had they been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.' He does not say that they ceased to be of us by going out, but that they went out because they were not of us." (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, 3:19:26)

Doesn't really refer to any particular invisible body of believers. Along with Augustine's preaching of an institutional Church elsewhere in his writings, I don't think this really counts.

"The second rule is about the twofold division of the body of the Lord; but this indeed is not a suitable name, for that is really no part of the body of Christ which will not be with Him in eternity. We ought, therefore, to say that the rule is about the true and the mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or some such name; because, not to speak of eternity, hypocrites cannot even now be said to be in Him, although they seem to be in His Church." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 3:32)

This is neutral on the position of an invisible or visible Church.

Lactantius also tells us:

But, however, because all the separate assemblies of heretics call themselves Christians in preference to others, and think that theirs is the Catholic Church, it must be known that the true Catholic Church is that in which there is confession and repentance, which treats in a wholesome manner the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is liable."

I find it kind of funny that you're citing this as support for support of an invisible institution. This paragraph doesn't speak at all about any invisible Church.

Tertullian
"Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under 'three witnesses,' there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) there is the Church, which is a body of three." -

After reading this paragraph in context, it's clear that the entire thing is talking about the necessity of baptism for salvation, and the form in which it is given. As part of the baptism, the Church must be "mentioned." I am wary about your interpretation of this excerpt, both because the "invisible Church" is not the main subject matter, and also because you seem to be reading it backwards. Often "where ever two or three are gathered in my name" is used to justify the invisible Church. This is the opposite: where ever the Trinity is, there is the Church. This much is obvious, as the Church is God's vehicle in the world. That doesn't really address whether or not it is visible or invisible.

I will address the two remaining valid passages in another post.

 

[simonthezealot]

Here is another for consideration, and the truth is that, although *other* definitions were advocated as well, you do see the idea of a spiritual entity consisting only of believers clearly was one of the definitions. For example, the ancient writings of Justin Martyr state this..


"Moreover, that the word of God speaks to those who believe in Him as being one soul, and one synagogue, and one church, as to a daughter; that it thus addresses the church which has sprung from His name and partakes of His name (for we are all called Christians), is distinctly proclaimed in like manner in the following words, which teach us also to forget our old ancestral customs, when they speak thus: 'Hearken, O daughter, and behold, and incline thine ear; forget thy people and the house of thy father, and the King shall desire thy beauty: because He is thy Lord, and thou shalt worship Him.'" - Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, 63)

 

[simonthezealot]

Dark_lite you can deny that people defined the Christian church as a spiritual entity consisting only of believers during the earliest centuries of Christianity.
You know full well that the truth is that the term "church" was defined in numerous ways, and the concept of an invisible church *was* one of those definitions.
We know and see this in scripture as well.

 

[Dark_Lite]

In the Stromata, it seems that Clement is a bit all over the place. So, let's examine his statements in context, like we should have been doing from the beginning. Here is part of the 15th chapter from the same book (VII) in the Stromata:

Such being the case, it is evident, from the high antiquity and perfect truth of the Church, that these later heresies, and those yet subsequent to them in time, were new inventions falsified [from the truth].

From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God’s purpose are just, are enrolled. For from the very reason that God is one, and the Lord one, that which is in the highest degree honourable is lauded in consequence of its singleness, being an imitation of the one first principle. In the nature of the One, then, is associated in a joint heritage the one Church, which they strive to cut asunder into many sects.

Therefore in substance and idea, in origin, in pre-eminence, we say that the ancient and Catholic Church is alone, collecting as it does into the unity of the one faith—which results from the peculiar Testaments, or rather the one Testament in different times by the will of the one God, through one Lord—those already ordained, whom God predestinated, knowing before the foundation of the world that they would be righteous.

But the pre-eminence of the Church, as the principle of union, is, in its oneness, in this surpassing all things else, and having nothing like or equal to itself. But of this afterwards.

This particular chapter is talking about the efforts of heretics to sunder the Church, and sheds more light on Clement's idea of what "the Church" is, and I think it's a far cry from what most Protestants would think of as an invisible Church.

Will address the other one later.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Dark_lite you can deny that people defined the Christian church as a spiritual entity consisting only of believers during the earliest centuries of Christianity.
You know full well that the truth is that the term "church" was defined in numerous ways, and the concept of an invisible church *was* one of those definitions.
We know and see this in scripture as well.

If I knew "full well," I wouldn't be asking for ECF evidence. Now that you have presented enough to be considered for discussion, why don't you explain why my reasons for rejecting 80% of what you posted are wrong? The statement from Clement falters when viewed in context, and the reasons for rejecting your interpretations of the others have already been stated. Please explain why those are not valid instead of just saying I "know full well."

Lactantius is the strongest that you have posted thus far, but I have not yet evaluated him in context. Context is always, always everything.

It may be that there is an ECF that supports the notion of an invisible Church completely and utterly separate (<--- This is an extremely important qualifier) from a visible institution. If so, then the discussion will go in a different direction. But until then, one must actually be found.

Of course, if it's only one ECF out of all them, then that still doesn't really give much credence to the belief...

 

[simonthezealot]

In the Stromata, it seems that Clement is a bit all over the place. So, let's examine his statements in context, like we should have been doing from the beginning. Here is part of the 15th chapter from the same book (VII) in the Stromata:



This particular chapter is talking about the efforts of heretics to sunder the Church, and sheds more light on Clement's idea of what "the Church" is, and I think it's a far cry from what most Protestants would think of as an invisible Church.

Will address the other one later.

Well in particular this verse "and that in it those who according to God&#8217;s purpose are just, are enrolled"
It falls right in line, in the sense the ecclesia means elect or called out ones...NOT church.

SIDENOTE: could you not set the ecf's quotes up as quotes, just place them in the body of your response, thanks in advance.

 

[sunlover1]

The Bible alone can produce far too many widely differing interpretations to be meaningful in this context. See: Protestantism as a whole.

You can certainly cite a verse that you think supports an invisible Church, but to actually support that it was believed by the Early Christians, more than just your interpretation of a Bible verse is needed.

Well since you've now been given several quotes .. it's obvious that the same
is true with any writings... which is what i was getting at... which should
be a given and shouldn't even have to be mentioned.
You may not LIKE it (for some odd reason) but some of your ECF did
indeed suggest that the "church" was not some "visible" entity that you can
touch and see.. although you sure can "hear" it as tado points out

You know that many of the books of the New Testament were penned quite awhile after the events they record, right? The Gospels in particular are like this.

I do. But thank you for sharing that in case I hadn't (and i can see why you'd
get the idea that i was unaware of it .. God bless you)

Not necessarily, but it does give a lot of credence to them, as the ECFs are the best source beyond the Bible for what the early Christians believed. I will also still point out that just using the Bible alone isn't really sufficient in this case because that can produce a wildly large amount of ideas, as seen in Protestantism today.

IMO, it doesn't matter WHAT the reading material is.. it can produce a wildly
large amount of ideas.. But we go with what makes sense without having
to stretch other things and normally that'll do it (occam's razer)
If I've posted once I've posted one hundred times that were Jesus standing
here in the flesh speaking to us... you'd STILL hear one thing and me another.
It's NORMAL for folks to "hear" what they expect to hear.. that which matches
up with their own pet doctrines.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well in particular this verse "and that in it those who according to God&#8217;s purpose are just, are enrolled"
It falls right in line, in the sense the ecclesia means elect or called out ones...NOT church.

SIDENOTE: could you not set the ecf's quotes up as quotes, just place them in the body of your response, thanks in advance.

Read it more carefully. The sentence says the elect are in the Church:

"From what has been said, then, it is my opinion that the true Church, that which is really ancient, is one, and that in it those who according to God&#8217;s purpose are just, are enrolled."

It's not stating the elect ARE the Church.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Well since you've now been given several quotes .. it's obvious that the same
is true with any writings... which is what i was getting at... which should
be a given and shouldn't even have to be mentioned.
You may not LIKE it (for some odd reason) but some of your ECF did
indeed suggest that the "church" was not some "visible" entity that you can
touch and see.. although you sure can "hear" it as tado points out

I have already provided reasons why most of the quotes do not say what simon thinks they say. I have two left to work on, but I'm not dealing with them now as I'm doing other things. If you think that my interpretation of those quotes are wrong, or my reasoning invalid, then please point it out.

IMO, it doesn't matter WHAT the reading material is.. it can produce a wildly
large amount of ideas.. But we go with what makes sense without having
to stretch other things and normally that'll do it (occam's razer)
If I've posted once I've posted one hundred times that were Jesus standing
here in the flesh speaking to us... you'd STILL hear one thing and me another.
It's NORMAL for folks to "hear" what they expect to hear.. that which matches
up with their own pet doctrines.

If we are not accepting a protoprotestant hypothesis, the conclusion that the majority (if not all) of the Christian Church reached is that the Church is a visible institution as well as invisible. Remember that this whole thing spawned from justification of beliefs without protoprotestant hypotheses.

If you accept a protoprotestant hypothesis, then you can say that the invisible church idea was always true. But if not, well... it's difficult to say the least.

 

[simonthezealot]

Regardless, you can see as in scripture the church can and is both physical and spiritual... How you define physical depends on your presupposition I suppose.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Regardless, you can see as in scripture the church can and is both physical and spiritual... How you define physical depends on your presupposition I suppose.

I'm not interested in the position that the Church is both physical and spiritual (that is, visible and invisible). That's the Catholic teaching on the matter. I'm only interested in affirmative evidence that there is an invisible Church completely separate from institutions.

 

[Tangible]

"Completely separate" is a term I wouldn't be comfortable with when describing the Invisible Church. The two are certainly linked.

I would say that the Invisible Church is a subset of the Visible Church, that is, all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord.

 

[ivebeenshown]

"Completely separate" is a term I wouldn't be comfortable with when describing the Invisible Church. The two are certainly linked.

I would say that the Invisible Church is a subset of the Visible Church, that is, all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord.

 

[sunlover1]

I have already provided reasons why most of the quotes do not say what simon thinks they say. I have two left to work on,

They don't seem ambiguous though.

but I'm not dealing with them now as I'm doing other things. If you think that my interpretation of those quotes are wrong, or my reasoning invalid, then please point it out.

No sense in it. It's there in black and white
take it as you see fit

Remember that this whole thing spawned from justification of beliefs without protoprotestant hypotheses.

Forgive me for jumping into the middle of something. No, I didn't realise the
origin of the (evidently) rabbit trail.

If you accept a protoprotestant hypothesis, then you can say that the invisible church idea was always true. But if not, well... it's difficult to say the least.

Dunno bout that Dark/Lite but it's so evident as the nose on the face that there
is a church (body of Christ) that includes... all who are .. part of the body.
You wanna call it visible fine.. (I know I"m not invisible anyhow)
To be honest... isn't this all sort of "not real important" in the scheme of things anyhow?
*shrugs

 

[MamaZ]

Men may not attend the same assembly or institution as some put it but they are still the true church, the body of Christ.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Men may not attend the same assembly or institution as some put it but they are still the true church, the body of Christ.

Doesn't scripture say women should remain quiet?


BTW I agree that there is a mystical body of Christ that all christians share regardless of denomination.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

What does this 'non-Catholic' think of the Catechism?

I think it is exhaustingly descriptive and exceedingly definitive of the Mysteries. It is not as rigid as the Baltimore was, but if I was to find fault with Rome it has been her continued devotion to Scholasticism.

Other than that, much of what it contains is a defense of the ancient ways, the faith once delivered. I'm a fan of that.

 

[Dark_Lite]

"Completely separate" is a term I wouldn't be comfortable with when describing the Invisible Church. The two are certainly linked.

I would say that the Invisible Church is a subset of the Visible Church, that is, all who confess Jesus Christ as Lord.

I am strictly defining "visible Church" as a holy institution, composed of believers. In this sense, there is a visible Church with members in it. This definition doesn't address whether or not people visibly outside of that institution are part of the Church or not, nor does it address any particular specifics of this theology found in the apostolic churches. That is, this definition does not care about the Catholic teaching of all Christians being united by baptism, or the much stricter Orthodox teaching on the nature of the Church.

This definition merely asserts that the Church is visible inside an institution.

I am defining "invisible Church" as a body of believers, and not an institution. This definition again does not care about any specifics. It does, however, make the positive assertion that there is no visible institution which could be considered "the Church."

I hope this clears up what I mean by these terms.

They don't seem ambiguous though.

No sense in it. It's there in black and white
take it as you see fit


Forgive me for jumping into the middle of something. No, I didn't realise the
origin of the (evidently) rabbit trail.


Dunno bout that Dark/Lite but it's so evident as the nose on the face that there
is a church (body of Christ) that includes... all who are .. part of the body.
You wanna call it visible fine.. (I know I"m not invisible anyhow)
To be honest... isn't this all sort of "not real important" in the scheme of things anyhow?
*shrugs

The "invisible Church" refers to the idea of "the Church" not being embodied in any particular institution. The teaching of apostolic Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc) is that "the Church" is an institution, and is composed of believers. This is commonly called "visible Church."

If one idea or the other were obvious, this discussion wouldn't exist. So, please either address the reasoning I have posted on why the ECF quotes are invalid, since you think they are actually valid.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Actually, the way you describe it, I am not united with the RCC in any way.

And so can other early documents.

Indeed, and i have seen it done in these very forums...

BUT when one takes the Churches teachings - which are in the Catechism - they address scriptures and all the writings that the Church has held for all ages they can discover the meaning from the teachings through the Church - to explain it to the average lay person who might otherwise render an assault on the truth behind the words meanings. History is also a powerful tool to know the scriptures....and how they thot back then.

Errors are unfortunate. MOSTLY - and i will say this - the errors of understanding usually come from not taking in the whole picture but using snippets of scriptures as well as the fathers, that would in effect seem to contradict one another if one is not careful. This is where doubt can grab hold too.

So if their 'beliefs' are found in the Bible (a few Bible verses only) which is
a picture of the actual "early church" they're no good.
But if they're found happening in the (AFTER NT) "early church" they're all
good.
AND, as everyone knows.., the Words of the Apostles, recorded in Scripture can be twisted,
but the "ECF's" words, they can't be.

Actually - i wish it were true the ecf's words were immune. As i said, disregarding the entire writing and writings [which are not apart from themselves] is the basic error made in reading and understanding them.

Each father pays strict attention to remind others that no where else but in the CHURCH is the truth.
^^ That is usually the first thing skipped.

Second, the fact the father is a Bishop, Saint, Martyr or Priest or Pope of the Church - gets lost somewhere with some.

 

[MamaZ]

Doesn't scripture say women should remain quiet?


BTW I agree that there is a mystical body of Christ that all christians share regardless of denomination.

Actually no it doesn't..