What Does The Invisible Church Mean For Me?

[Anastasia13]

Someone on another forum said, "The nebulous invisible church of the Roman (c) Church is not so invisible, it is defined by the Doctrine of Roman(c) Church. The Doctrine is clear, only those with no knowledge of the church and those under the age of consent are potentially saved out side the sincere within the Church." Is this fully accurate?

What does the Catholic Church's teaching on the invisible church mean for me, as a non-Catholic Christian who knows something of the church but is not fully convinced of the Catholic Church over other churches?

[kafka]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='22 January 2010 - 03:25 AM' timestamp='1264148750' post='2042159']
Someone on another forum said, "The nebulous invisible church of the Roman (c) Church is not so invisible, it is defined by the Doctrine of Roman(c) Church. The Doctrine is clear, only those with no knowledge of the church and those under the age of consent are potentially saved out side the sincere within the Church." Is this fully accurate?

What does the Catholic Church's teaching on the invisible church mean for me, as a non-Catholic Christian who knows something of the church but is not fully convinced of the Catholic Church over other churches?
[/quote]
Basically it means that it is possible for a person who has not made a full profession of Catholic Faith and been visibly recieved into the Church, to still be a member of the Church through the state of sanctifying grace. This is roughly the doctrine taught at our Second Vatican Council.

In my opinion this would be especially true of all prenatals, infants and children under the age of reason who died and were not formally baptised. It is clear to me without going into a huge theological debate that God mystically or (non-formally) baptizes them and saves them. This probably would fall partly under the teaching of the Universal Magisterium and speculative theology.

Also those who through no grave fault of there own are ignorant of the Faith and seek God either explicitly or implicitly throught the good in creation, live a life following their conscience based on the moral law promulgated into the reason of man in virtue of God creating his soul. It is possible that God mystically baptizes them, especially if they have no access to baptism.

Also those Protestants and Orthodox Christians who are baptised in the state of grace but have no oppurtunity to seek the Catholic Faith or perhaps have oppurtunity to seek it but fail to join through no grave fault of their own.

Those who cooperate with God's grace and truly repent before they die out of a perfect act of loving contrition.

Most of this falls under speculative theology. Although it is my opinion that the salvation of prenatals, infants and children who died unbaptised are saved is an infallible teaching of the Universal Magisterium at this point in time.

Sorry I had to use all these terms you might not be familiar with, but that was to protect myself here.

Edited January 22, 2010 by kafka

[Veridicus]

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus has had somewhat of a transformation in meaning in the last 100 years. My understanding, and I am not presuming to speak for the Church on this, is that outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation (this is the meaning of the preceding Latin phrase). In the past this has been hard and fierce teaching suchwise that pretty much every one of the Ecumenical Councils would state what was required to be in line with the belief of the Church and those who held contrary opinions outside of what was defined were deemed heretical and anathematized (cursed/detested/cast out). The Vatican II documents, through my skimming and spot reading, lack the phrase 'anathema' entirely.

So the current understanding of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus as far as I can tell (again this is my understanding, I'm not speaking for the Church) seems to be that there may exist individuals who are not outwardly in full Communion with the Catholic Faith but are yet inwardly in full enough Communion to be saved through the graces Christ pours on the world through his Bride, the Church. One example is the idea of 'Invincible Ignorance' whereby someone who was wholly incapable of knowing of Christ (say an 8th century Native American) isn't outright condemned to Hell or utterly deprived of Grace because of mere geographic circumstance. Some people also take this argument to extend the ignorance clause to include those Protestants raised in Protestantism from birth who have not outright denied the Catholic Faith but have never had the social opportunity to reject it...people who are legitimately searching for Christ but who are separated from union with the Church and the sacramental connection to Christ made present in the Catholic Mass. Now once this door is open, it could potentially extend to anyone anywhere for any reason...which basically abrogates any reason for ever coining the phrase "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" which the Church has used throughout the centuries to emphasize the importance of being physically part of the Catholic Church.

In my opinion, and this is only my opinion, there has been a dangerous liberalization of the meaning of the phrase "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" (which now basically has no meaning). This dissolution of the meaning of the term has occurred for ecumenical purposes. In my opinion, there may very well exist individuals who are invincibly ignorant...but this is a shrinking reality. The internet and spread of education around the world has enabled individual humans every access to Truth if they are looking. And as the people who would assume do away completely with the phrase "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" would say...only God can truly know the heart and only Christ is the final Judge. But as a Catholic I feel Christ left behind a visible Church instituted on the office of the Apostles who were given authority to bind and loose in Christ's name.

It has been very difficult for me to conform myself to the teaching of the Church even having been raised in a decent Catholic family; I have had to crucify my pride and passions and continue to do so. It's not easy for anyone. In my experiences in apologetics and discussions with my protestant friends, I have found that in many cases their reticence to assent to the teachings of the Church are no different than my own struggles. It is hardness of heart, doubt, fear of conflict with their protestant families, sins from which they are unwilling to part, and in some cases sheer religious bigotry against Catholics. These friends of mine are not ignorant of the Church or the arguments for Her veracity; they simply reject it for their own reasons...and in this sense, in my opinion, they are rejecting communion with the Church. After all, Christ didn't even give heed to bury your own father and say farewell to your mother if you desired to follow him in truth and enter into his Kingdom.

In my opinion, outside the Church there is no salvation; but most assuredly a few are 'invisibly' united to the Catholic Church despite no exterior sacramental or physical union to Her. I would say these are exceptions to the rule (assuming the rule of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus stands) that rely fully on the exceptional mercy and omniscience of God. I feel called to evangelization and apologetics precisely because I feel that outside the Church there is no salvation and within the Church there is abundant sanctifying and salvific grace to be experienced through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and Catholic piety. I do not consider my Faith an option but a necessity to truly know, love and serve God here on earth. All human worship falls short of a partaking in the True Worship of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass where the Lamb stands as if slain and we share in the Body of Christ.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='22 January 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1264199933' post='2042426']In my experiences in apologetics and discussions with my protestant friends, I have found that in many cases their reticence to assent to the teachings of the Church are no different than my own struggles.[/quote]
Some of us get the idea from multiple sources/Catholics that if you have reticence about the Church's teachings, you can't join. You need to be willing to totally conform to the Church's teachings if you want to join. If you have an unwillingness to accept the Church's teachings on something, you are not accepting the Church's authority, which is part of converting. I don't know how much others have been in that position. This is one of several things that kept me from converting before. (The rest is not quite as relevant to my question on this thread.)

What knowledge would a person need to be guilty of rejecting the church? I understand that some of this is speculativ, and I appreciate your distinction in your previous post.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='24 January 2010 - 10:32 PM' timestamp='1264393936' post='2044019']
Some of us get the idea from multiple sources/Catholics that if you have reticence about the Church's teachings, you can't join. You need to be willing to totally conform to the Church's teachings if you want to join. If you have an unwillingness to accept the Church's teachings on something, you are not accepting the Church's authority, which is part of converting. I don't know how much others have been in that position. This is one of several things that kept me from converting before. (The rest is not quite as relevant to my question on this thread.)

What knowledge would a person need to be guilty of rejecting the church? I understand that some of this is speculativ, and I appreciate your distinction in your previous post.
[/quote]

I feel I may have led you into confusion. It is absolutely necessary to have the intent to be obedient and submit to the teachings of the Church in order to convert. You do need to be willing to totally conform to the Church's teachings if you want to join. Part of becoming Catholic is standing in front of the Church and stating that you believe and accept the teachings of the Church. The point I was trying to express is that our individual conformity of our wills to the will of the Church is an ongoing process. Stating "I accept that X is sinful and I detest X" doesn't necessarily mean that I won't commit X again...or even that I won't fall into habitual X again. Sanctification is a process; but the first most important step is admitting our own hubris and crucifying our own egos. You don't have to 'get' all of the teachings, but you have to accept that you will submit to them and pray about them and try to understand the teaching. There have been several teachings I myself have had to simply accept in submission while inside I questioned their veracity. Over time and with study I have come to see the truth and wisdom of these teachings.

You have to believe the Church is right if you want to convert and truly intend to live by her teachings; and while you are called to perfection, you do not however have to be perfect. You may have reticence because your will is broken...sin clouds the intellect and weakens the will. It is possible to not understand or even have misgivings about something but to submit to it nonetheless because you recognize your doubts are a matter of your own sinfulness. This is the point I was trying to make in my preceding post.

I continue to struggle with conforming myself to the Church. I am a sinful man and at times it would seem easier to just stop attempting to conform myself. But I struggle. That is the difference between me and those who lack the resolve to convert.

That is my point: Some people choose to struggle with the goal in sight. And others can never reconcile their brokeness to the idea of 'Perfect Teaching' and thus shy away from it like shadows flee from light.


And I would say that the knowingly contumacious refusal to accept doctrinal/dogmatic teachings of the Church would, by my speculation, be sufficient to preclude the possibility of being invisibly united to the Catholic Church.

Obedience surpasses sacrifice.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Veridicus

[little_miss_late]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='24 January 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1264393936' post='2044019']
Some of us get the idea from multiple sources/Catholics that if you have reticence about the Church's teachings, you can't join. You need to be willing to totally conform to the Church's teachings if you want to join. If you have an unwillingness to accept the Church's teachings on something, you are not accepting the Church's authority, which is part of converting. I don't know how much others have been in that position. This is one of several things that kept me from converting before. (The rest is not quite as relevant to my question on this thread.)

What knowledge would a person need to be guilty of rejecting the church? I understand that some of this is speculativ, and I appreciate your distinction in your previous post.
[/quote]

Hello Light and Truth,

I have been in your position. All I can say is that at some point, it became clear to me that God wanted me to look into the Catholic faith with an open heart. It wasn't clear to me that I was "supposed" to convert or that the Church was right about anything. I just realized that this might be what God wanted for me, and even if some part of me felt rebellious and angry over certain teachings, or even if I disliked 90% of all the Catholics I knew, or whatever... I needed to look at it with an open heart. And if it turned out that my God was in the Catholic church, then really, the rest of it wouldn't matter.

And when I started looking and listening with an open heart, so many other things changed. In a fairly short time I have come to see great wisdom and love in places where before I only saw obstacles.




I would also add to Veridicus's excellent comments that in my opinion, there is a great difference between rejection of something and ignorance of something. I have friends in other faiths, who may have 21st century "access" to Christianity but what they've gained from that access is so distorted that they are still basically ignorant. I think this is very different from someone who understands and rejects church teaching.

Edited January 27, 2010 by little_miss_late

[Saint Therese]

It means the Church is always watching, even when you can't see them..

[Ephrem Augustine]

invisible church or Invincible Church!

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Light and Truth' date='22 January 2010 - 03:25 AM' timestamp='1264148750' post='2042159']
Someone on another forum said, "The nebulous invisible church of the Roman (c) Church is not so invisible, it is defined by the Doctrine of Roman(c) Church. The Doctrine is clear, only those with no knowledge of the church and those under the age of consent are potentially saved out side the sincere within the Church." Is this fully accurate?

What does the Catholic Church's teaching on the invisible church mean for me, as a non-Catholic Christian who knows something of the church but is not fully convinced of the Catholic Church over other churches?
[/quote]

It means that we believe there are some who are not formally, visibly joined to the Church that are in union with her through their desire for the truth and ignorance of their errors. It also means that there are those who do not join her through obstinance who are culpable. We do not know which you are. We pray as if all "outside" the visible church are damned and hope as if they are saved.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='01 February 2010 - 10:28 PM' timestamp='1265084921' post='2049461']
We pray as if all "outside" the visible church are damned and hope as if they are saved.
[/quote]

Perfect concision. Well-stated.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kafka' date='22 January 2010 - 05:09 PM' timestamp='1264198195' post='2042421']
In my opinion this would be especially true of all prenatals, infants and children under the age of reason who died and were not formally baptised. It is clear to me without going into a huge theological debate that God mystically or (non-formally) baptizes them and saves them. This probably would fall partly under the teaching of the Universal Magisterium and speculative theology.
[/quote]

That definitely does not fall under the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium since the Church has never taught it.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Resurrexi