Being united with the Church

[CollegeKid]

Some of you may have seen my posts with questions about the visible church and the Mystical Body of Christ and how we all, Catholic or non-Catholic, fit into the equation. My next question is this: Since its my understanding that the Mystical Body of Christ refers to the mystical unity through the sacraments of the members of the Roman Catholic Church, are Protestants who’ve received Trinitarian baptism partially in communion with the Mystical Body until they reach the age of reason and accept protestantism? When they do accept protestantism, are they cut off from the mystical body b/c they’ve rejected the Catholic faith, even though they were validly baptized?

 

[hurst]

CollegeKid:

My next question is this: Since its my understanding that the Mystical Body of Christ refers to the mystical unity through the sacraments of the members of the Roman Catholic Church, are Protestants who’ve received Trinitarian baptism partially in communion with the Mystical Body until they reach the age of reason and accept protestantism?

Yes.

1. 
   *] Baptism can be validly administered by anyone (De fide)
   *] The Baptism of young children is valid and licit (De fide)
   
   … It follows from the validity of child-Baptism that baptized infants are full members of the Church, and that, after attaining the use of reason, they are obliged to fulfill the baptismal vows taken on their behalf by their godparents… For the sake of his eternal salvation he must assume the obligations of Christian belief and Christian morality which flow from Baptism.
   
   Ott, p.358-360
   
   
   CollegeKid:
   

   When they do accept protestantism, are they cut off from the mystical body b/c they’ve rejected the Catholic faith, even though they were validly baptized?

   Correct, objectively speaking.
   
   I think it can be said, though, that if they are part of a protestant group that says little or nothing about the Catholic Church, that it is still possible that they have not “rejected” it, but only lack what they otherwise would accept. Some protestants of good will, upon hearing the truth about the Catholic Church, are very open to it and want to be a part of it. Thus their disposition is such that they do not reject when God offers.
   
   hurst

 

[Thal59]

Just for the sake of debate… Let’s say that the RCC is the Apostlic church established by Christ.

Baptism is fine, however…

1. To reject His church is also to reject His sacraments; which includes the Real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
2. Reject the priesthood, and you have again rejected the Lord. (He who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.)
3. Accepting Christianity outside of the church is to accept schism - which in turn violates the Lord’s prayer for unity within His church. If one lives in schism, one is in effect perpetuating it. How can someone consider themselces a part of a body that they intentionally don’t wish to belong to?
4. Deny the teaching authority of the church, (the Magesterium) and one denies the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would “recall all I have said to you, teach you all things, lead you into all truth, and be with you forever” One would then be denying the presence and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit.
5. Maintain one’s Christianity outside of the Apostolic church on the rationale that the church somewhere apostasized and lost its authority, and one is proclaiming Christ a liar when He promised… “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (His church.)

Why retain a circuitous or indirect relationship with the Lord and His church? Why not just believe the Lord’s words regarding His promises to maintain the church and its authority and enter into full communion with it?

Thal59

 

[hurst]

Thal59:

Why retain a circuitous or indirect relationship with the Lord and His church? Why not just believe the Lord’s words regarding His promises to maintain the church and its authority and enter into full communion with it?

One must hear before one can believe. And one must preach before one can hear.

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher?

We need more people like you to help preach!

hurst

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

Just for the sake of debate… Let’s say that the RCC is the Apostlic church established by Christ.

Baptism is fine, however…

1. To reject His church is also to reject His sacraments; which includes the Real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist.
2. Reject the priesthood, and you have again rejected the Lord. (He who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.)
3. Accepting Christianity outside of the church is to accept schism - which in turn violates the Lord’s prayer for unity within His church. If one lives in schism, one is in effect perpetuating it. How can someone consider themselces a part of a body that they intentionally don’t wish to belong to?
4. Deny the teaching authority of the church, (the Magesterium) and one denies the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit would “recall all I have said to you, teach you all things, lead you into all truth, and be with you forever” One would then be denying the presence and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit.
5. Maintain one’s Christianity outside of the Apostolic church on the rationale that the church somewhere apostasized and lost its authority, and one is proclaiming Christ a liar when He promised… “The gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (His church.)

Why retain a circuitous or indirect relationship with the Lord and His church? Why not just believe the Lord’s words regarding His promises to maintain the church and its authority and enter into full communion with it?

Thal59

Because many have been raised to believe that the Catholic Church’s claims about Herself are not true, that in fact they are completely false and that she is a tool of Satan and the Great Whore of Babylon, etc, because one has been raised with an entirely different belief about the nature of the Church, etc. You cannot make it simplistic. There are no good reasons not to embrace Holy Mother Church, but there are misconceptions that people think are reasons.

 

[Thal59]

Hurst:

Thank yuo for the invitation to preach. But I am not a preacher, nor have I been called to do so. I am not qualified. What we need is more people to accept a live of holy orders.

JKirkLVNV:

I understand your point-of-view, but in a way it is simplistic. There is only ONE church that dates back to the first Pentecost. Christ describes His church as being perpetual; never being NOT His church. Men, who have an agenda against His church, constantly attack and smear it. This is the simplistic choice: one either believes the words of Jesus, or one believes the words of man. It truly is that simple. The problem arises with the caveat…

“This is why I said no one can come to me unless the Father enable him.”

Thal59

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Thal59:

Hurst:

Thank yuo for the invitation to preach. But I am not a preacher, nor have I been called to do so. I am not qualified. What we need is more people to accept a live of holy orders.

JKirkLVNV:

I understand your point-of-view, but in a way it is simplistic. There is only ONE church that dates back to the first Pentecost. Christ describes His church as being perpetual; never being NOT His church. Men, who have an agenda against His church, constantly attack and smear it. This is the simplistic choice: one either believes the words of Jesus, or one believes the words of man. It truly is that simple. The problem arises with the caveat…

“This is why I said no one can come to me unless the Father enable him.”

Thal59

I don’t see what I said as being simplistic at all. It is a fact that people are raised (by people who love them and whom they love) in faiths that are not Catholic, from Orthodox through Protestant through non-Christian, which faiths they are taught from earliest age to CHERISH. You make it sound as though one can propose the reasonableness of the items you ennumerated (and I can tell you that I believe every dogma and doctrine the Church proposes to me) and bingo! everyone will see the light and start swimming the Tiber without a backwards glance. For example:

“He who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.” I know countless devout people who would react to you saying that by saying,“I’ve never rejected what the Apostles have written!” We call that idea, as you know, “sola scriptura,” which makes about as much sense to me as it does to you, but which is treasured by those people who were raised with it. Thus, they don’t see themselves as rejecting the Apostles.

My argument is against the seeming simplicity of this final statement of yours in your original post: “Why not just believe the Lord’s words regarding His promises to maintain the church and its authority and enter into full communion with it?” With respect, you’ve rather blithely dismissed not just other’s creeds, but their heart-felt attachment to their creeds, to the creeds of their fathers and grandfathers, to the beliefs of their mothers, deficient creeds though they may be (and I absolutely agree that they are defficient).