61
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
: I'm looking at your sentence and wondering if the confusion is simply an English thing. You wrote: "In roman catholic doctrine the invisible and the visible church are identified although it is admitted that elements of the invisible church are present outside the visible (i.e. the Catholic) church." Did you mean "In Roman Catholic Doctrine the invisible and visible church are mostly considered identical although there is recognition that some elements of the invisible church can be present outside the visible (i.e. Roman Catholic) church." - Is that what you meant? --[[User:Graham grove|Graham grove]] 14:14, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
::Since Vatican II the matter has become complicated. I avoided the word "identical" because the council admitted that both are separated and at the same time closely connected. The common phrase is now that the Church of christ (i.e. the invisible church) "''subsistit in''" (i.e. existed, exists and continues to exist) the Catholic church (i.e. the visible church). I don't know how to phrase that in a way which is at least a little bit understandable. Seemingly "identified" was the wrong word. Just use "closely connected"? Separated articles for visible and invisible church would be inappropriate for this reason because such a strict separation doesn't exist for some denominations. Rather create an article [[Church (theology)]] or similar where such viewpoints can be presented. IMO this touches a common problem of Wikichristian articles. You can always see from which theological viewpoint they are written. F.ex. [[Baptismal regeneration]] is not a word from Catholic theology but instead a word from an evangelical theology to describe Catholic (and others) doctrine. --[[User:Benedikt|Benedikt]] 14:33, 23 July 2008 (PDT)
