Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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)
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.I have also been perplexed about the concept of the stain of original sin. Perhaps SMA might enlighten us about it.
Nevertheless, to say that is to describe an "invisible church" concept.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
And again you are talking about membership.
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.But that isn't what we are talking about.
As I said, you're now talking primarily about the visible church, yet the subject remains the INvisible church.We are talking about authority. As far as the visible leadership of your local pastors, congregations, etc...
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.
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?
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?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?