L
- Status
C
casual_visitor
Guest
I am ok with the idea that Protestants, Jews etc etc have a relationship with the mystical body of Christ. I am NOT OK with someone stating that they are PART of the mystical body of Christ in someway.
Because if they are already part of it, there is nothing more to do anyway.
P
piouswoman
Guest
Prove to me that they are not. The contrast between the traditional Latin Masses of the SSPX and the NO is astounding. The two are not even remotely alike.
J
jam070406
Guest
“The ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.”
Pope Benedict XVI
C
casual_visitor
Guest
So are they **part **or in a relationship with the mystical body of Christ?
J
jam070406
Guest
Seems to me like he is saying relationship.
C
casual_visitor
Guest
I think there must be some mistake. Are you sure Ut Unum Sint states that they are PART of the Mystical Body of Christ? I can’t find such a reference in Ut Unum Sint anywhere.
Or did you use the word ‘belong’ to say that they have a relationship with the Mystical Body of Christ? Because that I do agree with and will save me a lot of sleepless nights.
L
Laudate_Dominum
Guest
That’s a very Protestant mindset. Salvation doesn’t work like that. Think of it like this…
There’s a road. There’s a lot of snares and brambles and cut-throats on it just waiting to stop you attaining that eternal crown. Protestants, by virtue of their baptism, are at the start of the road. Everyone baptised starts here.
However… a Catholic gets a police escort along the road. A Protestant is left to his own devices. He walks the road, tripping himself on cracks, scratching himself in the brambles, dodging the cut-throats after his wallet and is in danger of taking the wrong turn and ending on a road that is going very far from his intended destination.
C
casual_visitor
Guest
Ok that makes sense. Phew. To be honest, I didn’t even sleep well last night because of this issue.Seems to me like he is saying relationship.
I think JR Education might have meant relationship too by saying ‘belong’ because I can’t find a reference in Ut Unum Sint that states they are PART of the Mystical Body of Christ.
Thanks for helping me out in realizing this! I am very grateful
O
Old_Salt
Guest
All men become part of the Mystical Body [be they Protestant or Catholic] when they are baptised since Baptism is exclusively a Catholic sacrament.
They cease being a member of the Mystical Body when they mortally sin.
They cease being a member of the Mystical Body when they mortally sin.
C
casual_visitor
Guest
It is not a Protestant mindset. If they belong to the mystical body of Christ, it would imply that there is nothing more in terms of grace that the Protestant is missing.
If its only a ‘relationship’, then what you say is correct.
C
casual_visitor
Guest
Ok now I am confused again. Such a view seems incompatible with what is written in MCC. You need Baptism and acceptance of the True Faith.
L
Laudate_Dominum
Guest
I don’t see any conflict or difference between saying a Protestant has a relationship with the Body and a Protestant being a part of the Body.
To deny Protestants being a part of the Body of Christ is to deny their baptisms. Baptism is what makes us members of the Body of Christ. That’s why Protestants, heretics, schismatics, etc., have never had to be re-baptised upon conversion.
To deny Protestants being a part of the Body of Christ is to deny their baptisms. Baptism is what makes us members of the Body of Christ. That’s why Protestants, heretics, schismatics, etc., have never had to be re-baptised upon conversion.
L
Laudate_Dominum
Guest
From the catechism of the Council of Trent.
C
casual_visitor
Guest
Its important because MCC states the following
So it is not a matter of baptism only according to that, is it not?
Also, it goes back to the problem of now saying that you have no one church. You have a collection of church’s and unity does not exist. Neither would there be a visible church.
O
Old_Salt
Guest
Yes, by Trinitarian Baptism all men are joined to the Mystical Body [The Catholic Church] but as soon as a baptised person reaches the age of reason and gravely sins he must go to Confession or be Perfectly Contrite to be made back into Gods grace and be part of His Body again.
This is very improbable if he is not a Catholic.
This is very improbable if he is not a Catholic.
M
maurin
Guest
When they changed the definition of the Church from the Church of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church-- a centuries old definition-- to the Church of Jesus Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, then it is easy not to see the difference between being a part of the Church, and having a relationship to Her.
The former definition making clear 1 entity, the latter implying 2 entities. This is the problem with ambiguity and imprecision.
C
casual_visitor
Guest
Vatican I also states
I don’t think baptism alone makes a person part of the mystical body of Christ. If it were the case, why didn’t Pius XII simply state that?
J
JReducation
Guest
I think the problem is easier than we think. The Church does not change dogma. She can restate, develop it further, add to existing explanations and even correct other explanations that she finds fall short, but the dogma itself remains the same.
In this case, the dogma of the Mystical Body remains the same, meaning that there is a Mystical Body of Christ Christ is the head.
Mystici Corpus Christi is not a dogmatic statement. It is a theological statement. The pope is trying to explain and answer some questions of his time.
Pope Benedict is trying to explain and answer similar questions with the understanding that we have today. If you would read Ut Unum Sint, you’ll find no contradictions with dogma. What you will find is a different understanding of Protestantism. In light of the current state of Protestantism, Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II wrote Ut Unum Sint.
Pope Benedict has continued the work of Ut Unum Sint taking it one step further, which is what he did when he visited Martin Luther’s home a few months ago when he went to Germany. It was there that he made the famous statement that Protestantism today is a different phenomenon from what it was in the past. He also said that the Protestant who is born a Protestant is practicing faith, because this is the faith as he knows it and as it has been handed down to him. He’s not rebelling against anything.
While he was Prefect for the Congregation of the Faith he wrote that these communities are not devoid of truth and therefore are not completely separated from the Mystical Body, even though they exist outside of the physical boundaries of the Church. The reason being that their circumstances have changed. Pope John Paul approved this statement and it was added to the CCC and included in Ut Unum Sint. They also revised the canon dealing with heretics so that it only speaks about Catholics who deviate, not about Protestants. Protestants are not considered heretics, unless he’s a former Catholic. It’s one thing to be born a Protestant and another to leave the Catholic Church to become a Baptist.
How I deal with it is very simple. Mystici Corpus Christi was not a dogmatic decree. It was a theological statement about a dogma. The document did not change the dogma. There is still a Mystical Body. The document tried to answer questions that were pertinent to its day. Ut Unum Sin, is not a dogmatic statement either. It too is a theological statement about a dogma and it tries to answer questions that are being raised today.
Since the question that we’re dealing with today is, “What is the relationship of the Protestant communities to the Church?” I go with the answer this is being given for today.
Part of that answer also makes one big change that was not included in Mystici Corpus Christi. At the time that MCC was written, the thinking was that these were Protestant Churches. When Ut Unum Sint is written, the position of the Catholic Church has changed and it no longer accepts that the Protestants are churches. They are Reformation communities. Once you realize that they cannot be Churches, then you have to restate the same question that you did in 1947. Plus, you have to look at what has changed over those 60 years. There has been a great deal of change. We go with today’s statement, because it speaks about the situation as it is today, not yesterday or next century.
The example of same-sex marriage does not work here. That teaching comes from a moral doctrine that has been revealed. The content of MCC is not revealed truth. It is ABOUT a revealed truth. So are several other documents that followed it. That’s why St.Bonaventure called it the Theology of History and Bl John Henry Newman called it the Development of Christian Doctrine. As history moves forward, Truth remains the same, but situations change. As situations change, they help us understand more about the Truth that was always under our noses, like the seed and the tree. When holding the seed, the tree is right under your nose, but you can’t see it. That will happen with time.
This question about the relationship between the Protestants and the Mystical Body also becomes clearer with time, while the dogma of the Mystical Body remains the same – One body with Christ as its head.
I urge you to read Ut Unum Sin. It answers these questions better than I can. It’s well written and user friendly.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Laudate_Dominum
Guest
There is nothing wrong in and of its self with the words employed in Lumen Gentium. You’re saying the Council changed the definition of the Church by employing the term “subsists in”. It has not if one reads the document in light of the Church’s history and has a proper understanding of the Latin language.
However it is problematic in so far as it is ambiguous and unnecessary. But the Council its self changed nothing.
- Status