Lost Faith in the Church

[johnnyc176]

Jesus is not the Church.

Wasn’t that the aim of the protestants? To separate Jesus from His Church? Many protestants profess to loving Jesus but don’t think a church or even religion is needed. One only has to look at the many protestant denominations, some with women ordination, some with acceptance of homosexual marriage, some with acceptance of contraception, and even with acceptance of abortion not to mention the many interpretations of God’s Word to see the result of that.

The saints are acutely aware that Christ and his Church make up the “whole Christ”. “Let us rejoice that we have become Christ, for the fullness of Christ is the head and the members” (St. Augustine).

“Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church” (Pope St. Gregory the Great).

“Head and members form the same mystical person” (St. Thomas Aquinas).

At her trial, St. Joan of Arc replied, “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they are just one thing and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.”

 

[MrSnaith]

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ.

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature. (2 Peter 1:3-4)

-Tim-

I should clarify. When I said “we are partakers in His humanity, not His divinity,” the partaking I was referring to was union with Him by virtue of our membership in the Body. Obviously, yes, we partake of His divinity also when we receive Him in the Eucharist. Furthermore, as members of His Body, we become tabernacles of the Holy Spirit, and in this sense partake in the divine life of God, but I was making the distinction that we are one with Jesus in His humanity as His Body, keeping His divine nature distinct here, because we are not His Body by virtue of our own divinity. Because we don’t have our own divinity. Whatever partaking we receive in that regard is strictly grace, a gift offered to us. But we share in His Body by virtue of our humanity. This doesn’t mean being human automatically makes you a member of His Body though.

 

[Neofight]

…meanwhile, back to the original subject… Might be time to start a new thread …

 

[TimothyH]

Let me clarify my point.

Many non-Catholics want Jesus without the Church. Some Catholics however, separate the Church from Jesus but in the opposite way. They want the Church but seem to have forgotten about Jesus.

These go on and on about doctrine, dogma, devotion, liturgy, the Pope, the sacraments, and Magisterium. They know all the verses in the Bible to defend Church teaching - Matthew 16:18 for the papacy, 1 Peter 3:21 for the efficacy of baptism and so forth. They know the names of all the major encyclicals and Church documents - Sacrosilium Concilium, Mediator Dei and so forth, and can cite the dates of all the major Church councils. They take it to heart whenever the Church is insulted. But they rarely talk about Jesus.

Obviously I don’t know anyone’s heart. Please don’t accuse me of judging. We all know they are out there. They run blogs and have youtube channels and some are quite famous. I can’t tell how much they love Jesus. I don’t know. But they never mention His Holy Name.

I know a lady in her late 80’s. She couldn’t spell transubstantiation or name one encyclical. But she gives 25% of her money to the poor, never said a curse word or smoked a cigarette in her life and goes to Mass and prays the Rosary every single day. She does this because she loves Jesus and wants to please him by doing his will. She believes Jesus’ will is that she accept all that the Church teaches and that she love everyone she meets, and that is enough for her.

She doesn’t care about all this other stuff. Her love for Jesus is enough for her to accept all that the Church teaches. And she is at peace. And that is my point - love for Jesus should be reason enough for us to believe.

-Tim-

 

[Amandil]

MrSnaith, I understand that you had good intentions regarding your post but when speaking about theology and especially about the mystery of Christ and the Church you have to be very careful with your words.

For example, the Apostle John writes that “God is love.” That statement is true.

Yet, if you tried to say the inverse, “love is God”, that would be heterodoxy and simply untrue.
Because love is only an aspect of God’s divinity, it is not God’s essence.

Its absolutely true to say, “the Church is Christ”, it is heterodoxy to say that “Jesus is the Church.”

 

[SirEwenii]

Thanks for the responses, some very good ones. I’ll have to take some time to go through them carefully and prayerfully

 

[MrSnaith]

MrSnaith, I understand that you had good intentions regarding your post but when speaking about theology and especially about the mystery of Christ and the Church you have to be very careful with your words.

For example, the Apostle John writes that “God is love.” That statement is true.

Yet, if you tried to say the inverse, “love is God”, that would be heterodoxy and simply untrue.
Because love is only an aspect of God’s divinity, it is not God’s essence.

Its absolutely true to say, “the Church is Christ”, it is heterodoxy to say that “Jesus is the Church.”

I appreciate your correction, Amandil. As a matter of edification, please clarify how this is heterodoxy.

I understand the distinction you’ve made by analogy, but by your use of that particular analgy, you’ve confused the matter, for me at least. “God is love” is more like “Christ is the Church,” and “the Church is Christ” is more like “God is love.” Yet, you’re say the truth values are opposite in these cases.

To my mind, Christ is wed to the Church in the same way that, in Christ, God in wed to humanity. In Christ, the two natures of God and man become one, as a husband and wife become one. Yet, it is only true that God became man, and not that man became God. “God” is a bigger category, so to speak. Likewise, the Church as the mystical Body of Christ is the Incarnation brought to all men. As the Eucharist is the One Sacrifice made present to us throughout all ages, so too is the Church the Incarnation made present to us throughout all ages. And in the Incarnation, it is God who weds man, who unifies Himself to man, not the other way around. It is in this vision that I would assert that it is more true that Christ is the Church, Christ became the Church, Christ is the Kingdom come, than it is to say that the Church is Christ. Christ is the identity of the Church, yes, but Christ is the bigger “category” so to speak (no, I don’t mean to reduce Christ to a categorical concept. I only use the word as a means of communicating the idea that Christ’s full identity isn’t found within the Church, though the Church’s full identity is found in Christ). Thus, just as God is larger than love, and that God as love is love as it is perfect, and that there are lesser forms of love, so too, Christ is larger than the Church, and Christ as the Church is the Church as it is perfect, but also the Church is made up of lesser “Christs,” for that is what we are called to be as its members, little Christs. As such, I see it as more proper to say Christ is the Church than it is to say that the Church is Christ, though I aver that both are true.

However, all of that said, I do not wish to persist in error. So if what I have stated here is erroneous, please clarify how, exactly.

 

[johnnyc176]

Let me clarify my point.

Many non-Catholics want Jesus without the Church.

And some Catholics want Jesus without His Church in order to protest Church doctrine.

These go on and on about doctrine, dogma, devotion, liturgy, the Pope, the sacraments, and Magisterium. They know all the verses in the Bible to defend Church teaching - Matthew 16:18 for the papacy, 1 Peter 3:21 for the efficacy of baptism and so forth. They know the names of all the major encyclicals and Church documents - Sacrosilium Concilium, Mediator Dei and so forth, and can cite the dates of all the major Church councils. They take it to heart whenever the Church is insulted. But they rarely talk about Jesus.

Obviously I don’t know anyone’s heart. Please don’t accuse me of judging. We all know they are out there. They run blogs and have youtube channels and some are quite famous. I can’t tell how much they love Jesus. I don’t know. But they never mention His Holy Name.

Sounds like you have an axe to grind. You would have to be specific in order to show that they never mention His Holy Name. I’m not sure what the point is here except we are all called to proclaim the Truth and defend the Faith. I take it your not a big fan of Catholic Answers Live or the Dominicans.

She doesn’t care about all this other stuff. Her love for Jesus is enough for her to accept all that the Church teaches. And she is at peace. And that is my point - love for Jesus should be reason enough for us to believe.

Now if I changed the second sentence to…‘Her love for Jesus is enough for her to accept all that Jesus teaches.’ Same thing. That is my point.

Love for Jesus should be reason for us to believe what? That Jesus and His Church are One and the Same? I agree. By ‘all this other stuff’ I take you are alluding to doctrine and dogma. The reason many Catholics leave the Church is not because they don’t hear of Jesus. It is because they don’t want to accept a doctrine or dogma (as the op stated) much like protestants. So that is why we need those Catholics whose ministry is to defend the Faith and proclaim the Truth. I don’t think it was proper for you to speculate on their love for Jesus.

 

[Aloysium]

Thanks for the responses, some very good ones. I’ll have to take some time to go through them carefully and prayerfully

Let us all join together and pray to grow in faith.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There is no evidence for the assumption for hundred of years of the Church’s history. We have to assume it was taught when there is no recorded history to give any evidence for this. We have to take it on faith…

You don’t understand how Tradition works. It does not mean that every doctrine we have today was held by (and passed on by) the Early Church.

Most doctrine came about as answers to questions which have been asked over the centuries… The doctrine had not previously been taught before the question was asked and the answer was provided. There are surely questions today that nobody has yet thought to ask but the answers will become Catholic doctrine.

By the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it is not necessary to define all doctrines all up-front. They may be defined whenever the Church has a need to do so, and we are assured (by the Holy Spirit) that the Church’s answer today would be the same as the Early Church, had anyone back then thought to ask the question.

The Church does not teach that the Early Church believed everything we believe today. This is a common misconception, even among Catholics.