The philosophy behind the theology

[Albion]

The Catholic explanation of original sin differs from that of the Protestant understanding. Their view is not that man is born a sinner with a naturally sinful and corrupt nature, but that man is born innocent of sin, but carries the stain of Adam's sin which then is cleansed by the rite of baptism.

I don't think that is safe to say, but of course it would be correct for some Protestants.

(I also don't understand the difference between sin and the stain of sin which is to be cleansed by baptism)

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think that is safe to say, but of course it would be correct for some Protestants.

(I also don't understand the difference between sin and the stain of sin which is to be cleansed by baptism)

Yes, I hesitated before posting that because there are differrences within the Protestant views of original sin. I have also been perplexed about the concept of the stain of original sin. Perhaps SMA might enlighten us about it.

 

[Albion]

I have also been perplexed about the concept of the stain of original sin. Perhaps SMA might enlighten us about it.

Yes, let's see what he says about it. However, I think it's just another way of saying that you inherit sin. There is no question but that baptism absolves one of sin (in the RC view), so it's not as though "stain" is a poetic way of saying "the inclination towards sin" or something lesser.

 

[SMA12]

Nevertheless, to say that is to describe an "invisible church" concept.

I don't see how. The Catholic Church has visible leadership, agreed upon authority, definite teachings. The same cannot be said of the concept of an invisible church.

 

[SMA12]

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church claims an unknowable number of individuals as members. These "members", although hardly practicing, constitute a completely invisible church, known only to God.

A comparable situation occured with the Russian Orthodox Church when it was a department of the Russian Communist government. It claimed that every citizen of the USSR was a member. At least they knew the actual number of members, from government census records, which constituted their visible church.

Again we are speaking of the institution, not whether or not individuals within it are actually in communion. As I just replied to Albion, the Catholic Church has visible leadership, agreed upon authority, and definite teachings. These things are not present in the concept of the invisible church.

 

[SMA12]

Thank for the clarification. We seem to be in some sort of gray area here. While I agree with and understand the concept that one is not actually Catholic unless one has an active faith in Catholicism, there are multitudes of members of the Catholic Church who, on one hand, actively profess Catholic dogma, but on the other hand fail to live up to their profession. Their failure generally falls under the title of sin. As you know, in Catholicism there are venial sins and and there are mortal sins. Leaving aside those who commit venial sins (which is virtually every Catholic) let us look at those who commit mortal sins (a smaller number, but still extremely large). These include multitudes of relatively (and I use that term liberally) devout Catholics who attend Mass at Christmas and Easter, but at no other time, nor do they perceive any particular reason to confess their absence from week Mass as a sin, although they might do so when they go to Confession.

The question then arises as to where the Magisterium draws the line in determining who is a member of the Church. We all know that they include all manner of folks, including those who outspoken in their opposition to Catholic dogma. The rub comes with who is in communion with the Church. Would a person who skips Mass one Sunday to play golf with his buddies be considered to be in communion? If not, then the number of actual members in communion with the Catholic Church is amazingly small. Would you not agree?

Concerning the Catholic Church's claim on members of other churches, it is evident that it is quite empty as the claim is not made concerning individuals, who are clearly not in communion with the Catholic Church, but it is a hypothetical claim with no reality to it at all.

I'd go as far as to say every Catholic commits mortal sin, at some point, if not many times though out their life. This is why repentance and confession are so central to the Catholic faith. We all fail to live up to the Catholic faith. But not everyone is repenting, or even sees the need for repentance.

So I will try to choose my words more precisely so that we are on the same page and speaking the same language.

> Those who are baptized Catholic are always Catholic- baptism leaves an permanent mark on one's soul. Not every Catholic, as you point out, is a practicing Catholic in communion with the Church. These Catholics should not be receiving Communion unless they have repented and received the Sacrament of Confession. As you pointed out this is a very significant number of Catholics, and it includes those who only attend Christmas and Easter.

> I have lost track of everything I have said up to this point. I don't believe I did, but if I said Biden and Pelosi are not Catholic, I should have said they are not practicing Catholics, hence they should not be receiving communion.

> The number of Catholics within the Church, and their current status of Communion with the Church is a separate issue from the visibility/invisibility of the Church. The visibility of the Church is evidenced in the authority it carries, it's agreed upon leadership, and it's definitive teachings. The concept of the invisible church's lacks such attributes.

> The reason the numbers/ agreement of Catholics within the Church is separate from the issue of its visibility is because the Church is full of both wheat and tares. Not all Catholics go to Heaven. Not all non-Catholics go to Hell.

> Non-Catholics can be unknowingly, yet imperfectly united to the Catholic Church because a just and merciful God would not punish a person for something they are truly ignorant of through no fault of their own (where that line is drawn only God knows). Just as the Church will never declare an individual to be damned, it does not remove the possibility that a non-Catholic or non-Christian be saved. Yet this doesn't take away from the the very visible authority and very visible teachings of the Church. Hence they may or may not be at least partially in communion. And as always the judgement of their salvation is in he hands of The Lord.

 

[SMA12]

As far as original sin goes, this is a pretty good explanation where it is found biblically:

The clearest revelation on original sin is found in the Epistles of St. Paul, especially Romans 5:12-20. St. Paul writes:

Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous. [Rom 5:18-19]

Adam's original disobedience made us all sinners, while Christ's obedience on the Cross saves us from our sins. St. Paul also writes:

Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned. [Rom 5:12]

Adam's sin also brought death; however, death here should not be merely thought of in terms of bodily death as that which all animals experience but in a spiritual sense, as in the loss of eternal life (CCC 403). This passage also implies that even though Adam brought death into the world, we are also responsible since we all sinned. Elsewhere St. Paul writes:

For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. [1 Cor 15:21-22]

According to these passages, we inherited sin and death as a result of Adam's sin. This is why St. Paul reminds us that "we were by nature children of wrath." [Eph 2:3]
full article found here:
Original Sin :: Catholic News Agency

We believe original sin is evidenced by the fallen nature of man. This is why a savior is necessary. We inherited sin through one man, Adam, and we are delivered from it through one man, Jesus Christ.

Baptism, washes away this original sin. Yet we still manage to sin all our own after baptism, hence the need for repentance and the grace of God through the sacrament of confession, keeping salvation in our grasp in our life long battle against sin.

Original sin is in essence the sinful nature which you inherit, as opposed to actual sin which is sin that you commit.

Hopefully, this answers your question, but if not I will try my best to better do so.

 

[Albion]

I don't see how. The Catholic Church has visible leadership, agreed upon authority, definite teachings. The same cannot be said of the concept of an invisible church.

That's a point, but the main thing about the "invisible church" is that its MEMBERSHIP is known only to God. Of course, there are many examples of the visible church, i.e. the dioceses, local congregations, etc. And each of these has visible pastors and congregants.

But as was explained by bbbbbbb, if the membership is unknowable--as is the case with your church, considering that it maintains that former members are still part of it, people who are "baptized by desire" and not known personally by the RCC, and even pagans who are covered by the blood of Christ without ever having heard the Gospel--are part of it. Yes, all of these the Roman Catholic Church does indeed make provision for IN THEORY as being part of "the Church," it's...

...an invisible church concept.

 

[SMA12]

That's a point, but the main thing about the "invisible church" is that its MEMBERSHIP is known only to God. Of course, there are many examples of the visible church, i.e. the dioceses, local congregations, etc. And each of these has visible pastors and congregants.

But as was explained by bbbbbbb, if the membership is unknowable--as is the case with your church, considering that it maintains that former members are still part of it, people who are "baptized by desire" and not known personally by the RCC, and even pagans who are covered by the blood of Christ without ever having heard the Gospel--are part of it. Yes, all of these the Roman Catholic Church does indeed make provision for IN THEORY as being part of "the Church," it's...

...an invisible church concept.

And again you are talking about membership. But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about authority. As far as the visible leadership of your local pastors, congregations, etc... One congregation doesn't accept the leadership, teachings, etc of another congregation or denomination, which is why an invisible Church is incapable of any authority.

I don't know how much more I can emphasize this: membership within the Church is an entirely different issue than the visible authority of the institution. If your concept of the Church is incapable of yielding any real authority, how can it be the same authoritative Church that Scripture speaks of?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't see how. The Catholic Church has visible leadership, agreed upon authority, definite teachings. The same cannot be said of the concept of an invisible church.

However, the Catholic Church does not have a visible membership. It cannot define exactly who is a Catholic. It may claim that members of other Christian bodies are Catholics, but even then the definition of which of the members of those bodies are heretics or schismatics and which are Catholics is unknown. Thus, the Catholic Church, as it defines itself today, is invisible to a very large extent.

Part of the invisibility of the Catholic Church also consists of an enormous number of individuals who were baptized as Catholics but no longer self-identify as Catholics. The Catholic Church claims them as Catholics, but for all intents and purposes they are not.

It seems that we are talking in circles around each other. If we use your definition of visibility, then all Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches are visible. The all have clearly defined doctrines and leadership structures, albeit of varying sizes. If I wish to determine the visibility of any of these churches in my area all I need to do is grap a copy of the church section of the Yellow Pages and either call or drive over to these churches. I can also visit their websites and most membership information is readily available.

Thus, by your definition there is no such thing as an "invisible" church on this earth.

 

[SMA12]

However, the Catholic Church does not have a visible membership. It cannot define exactly who is a Catholic. It may claim that members of other Christian bodies are Catholics, but even then the definition of which of the members of those bodies are heretics or schismatics and which are Catholics is unknown. Thus, the Catholic Church, as it defines itself today, is invisible to a very large extent.

Part of the invisibility of the Catholic Church also consists of an enormous number of individuals who were baptized as Catholics but no longer self-identify as Catholics. The Catholic Church claims them as Catholics, but for all intents and purposes they are not.

I don't know how I can emphasize this any more than I already have. When I speak of visibility, I am not speaking of membership within the Church, but the authority of the institution itself.

What I just finished replying to Albion also applies to your statement:

And again you are talking about membership. But that isn't what we are talking about. We are talking about authority. As far as the visible leadership of your local pastors, congregations, etc... One congregation doesn't accept the leadership, teachings, etc of another congregation or denomination, which is why an invisible Church is incapable of any authority.

I don't know how much more I can emphasize this: membership within the Church is an entirely different issue than the visible authority of the institution. If your concept of the Church is incapable of yielding any real authority, how can it be the same authoritative Church that Scripture speaks of?

The question that keeps being avoided: how does your concept of the invisible Church yield any authority? If your concept yields no real authority, then how can it be the same authoritative institution we read about in Scripture?

 

[Albion]

And again you are talking about membership.

Of course. The "church" is, above all, the people of God.

But that isn't what we are talking about.

It may not be what you want to talk about, but it is exactly what is implied when the subject of the "invisible church" comes up. You want to talk about the visible church instead, but that is simply to change the subject.

You disagreed with the idea that the RCC is accepting of an invisible church concept of its own, so you cannot refute it by giving the term a new meaning. The comparison was made, it is there, and it appears to be me to be entirely reasonable to reach the conclusion that he did.

We are talking about authority. As far as the visible leadership of your local pastors, congregations, etc...

As I said, you're now talking primarily about the visible church, yet the subject remains the INvisible church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It seems to come down to a definition of "church". If we toss out scripture and redefine it as the bureaucratic heirarchy of a religious organization sans members, then one can easily point to thousands of such "churches". The number of these "churches" is unaffected if one wishes to toss in the idea that such organizations also retain clearly defined religious dogmas and authority. All of them claim such things and there is no objective means of determining which, if any, actually do.

The bottom line is that either all churches are visible, based on the above definition, or all are invisible, based on a standard definition of the word.

 

[SMA12]

Of course. The "church" is, above all, the people of God.


It may not be what you want to talk about, but it is exactly what is implied when the subject of the "invisible church" comes up. You want to talk about the visible church instead, but that is simply to change the subject.

You disagreed with the idea that the RCC is accepting of an invisible church concept of its own, so you cannot refute it by giving the term a new meaning. The comparison was made, it is there, and it appears to be me to be entirely reasonable to reach the conclusion that he did.


As I said, you're now talking primarily about the visible church, yet the subject remains the INvisible church.

It seems to come down to a definition of "church". If we toss out scripture and redefine it as the bureaucratic heirarchy of a religious organization sans members, then one can easily point to thousands of such "churches". The number of these "churches" is unaffected if one wishes to toss in the idea that such organizations also retain clearly defined religious dogmas and authority. All of them claim such things and there is no objective means of determining which, if any, actually do.

The bottom line is that either all churches are visible, based on the above definition, or all are invisible, based on a standard definition of the word.

Maybe if I only ask one question, one of you will finally respond to it.

How, specifically, does your concept of the invisible Church demonstrate any authority?

 

[Albion]

For myself, I'm not interested in playing along with your effort to change the subject. I might turn to the question you just shouted to us if we were first to handle the issue before us. But you have simply declined to address, acknowledge, or respond to the explanation of what the invisible church is. That being unfinished business, why should we all move now to a secondary question about the invisible church?

 

[SMA12]

For myself, I'm not interested in playing along with your effort to change the subject. I might turn to the question you just shouted to us if we were first to handle the issue before us. But you have simply declined to address, acknowledge, or respond to the explanation of what the invisible church is. That being unfinished business, why should we all move now to a secondary question about the invisible church?

Me changing the subject? Did you even bother to read the first post of the thread? Its about the philosophy of where authority if found in the Catholic vs. Protestant philosophies and which philosophy provides sustainable authority.

You keep changing the subject back to who is and who isn't a member of the Church. I have answered that at length, explained what is meant by visibility in terms of authority- the topic of this whole thread. I keep bringing the subject back to authority.

I bolded and enlarged my question because I asked more than 5 times with absolutely no acknowledgment. Why should I continue to engage you if you won't even do me the courtesy of acknowledging my original question, the question that actually has something to do with the topic of the thread?

Now please, answer my question so that we can get back on topic

 

[Targaryen]

Maybe if I only ask one question, one of you will finally respond to it.

How, specifically, does your concept of the invisible Church demonstrate any authority?

Authority in Jesus Christ perhaps?

 

[SMA12]

Authority in Jesus Christ perhaps?

Be specific. Two members this invisible Church of different theological backgrounds disagree about something essential in Scripture. Do you suggest they both just take turns telling each other " I have authority in Jesus Christ" " No I have authority in Jesus Christ"? Who do they go to? They are their own authorities. Their concept of the Church is incapable of authority, because it is comprised of contradictory teaching and leadership.

This is the difference in the philosophies that bolster the theologies in Catholic vs. Protestant ideas of the Church.

 

[Targaryen]

Be specific. Two members this invisible Church of different theological backgrounds disagree about something essential in Scripture. Do you suggest they both just take turns telling each other " I have authority in Jesus Christ" " No I have authority in Jesus Christ"? Who do they go to? They are their own authorities. Their concept of the Church is incapable of authority, because it is comprised of contradictory teaching and leadership.

This is the difference in the philosophies that bolster the theologies in Catholic vs. Protestant ideas of the Church.

Temporal authority eventually passes away. Temporal authority passes their own judgments on doctrine and dogma. Any temporal authority can be wrong, that is the point.

Doesn't matter if it's Pentecostals, anglicans or the RCC. Man-made authority is just that. Man-made.

 

[Albion]

Temporal authority eventually passes away. Temporal authority passes their own judgments on doctrine and dogma. Any temporal authority can be wrong, that is the point.

Doesn't matter if it's Pentecostals, anglicans or the RCC. Man-made authority is just that. Man-made.

It would be hard to improve upon that summary.