Protestant versus Catholic understanding of CHURCH

[God_Seeker_1]

I was watching this video on Catholicism by Father Robert Barron concerning the “Church”. After watching it, my wife and I had this discussion on how Protestants understand the Church and how Catholics understand the Church. Having read the Catholic Catechism on the issue, I have not been able to resolve the discussion that we had and was hoping you could find the crux of the issue.
We understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the “Church” is identified visibly in the hierarchical institution of duly ordained men, whether these duly ordained men are living in mortal or living in virtue. So the Church of Christ is made visible through the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, whether they are unholy or holy. So we suggested thinking hypothetically of the scenario of having the entirety of duly ordained men in the Catholic Church as ungodly in a state of mortal sin. In addition, all laity are likewise in a state of mortal sin. In this scenario (I am not sure if it is even possible), the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments are untainted in the slightest, and so the offering of the Eucharist is maintained just the same, only that the partakers are partaking of God’s judgement and not salvation. But the difficulty that we are having is thus follows: Given this hypothetical scenario, the Church is still existing in and amongst the sum total of these ungodly ordained men and the ungodly laity. From a protestant perspective, when Christ said “I will be with you until the ends of the Earth”, this implies that the people whom he will be “with” are actually “members of His Body” or “having the Trinity living in them”. But the problem here is, seemingly, that the Catholic understanding does not have an issue with the above hypothetical scenario being the true Church. In other words, it seems (please correct me if I am wrong) that the Catholic understanding of “Church” is that the full sum total of the duly ordained men and the laity in a state of sin can still be the true Church because of it’s outward unity with the location of the valid sacraments. In this construction, it seems as though the Church can exist without any human beings actually indwelt with the Trinity. This poses a problem for me, since St. Paul definitely taught that the Church was the living space of God the Holy Spirit, and since only those baptized in the Trinity have this gift of the Holy Spirit, only those who are in a state of grace, sum total, make up the true Church of Christ. I have read Bryan Cross’s article on the Visible Church but I never got a chance to see this specific issue covered, unless I have not understood it fully.
In this above scenario, you have the entire “Catholic Church” in a state of mortal sin, devoid of the Holy Spirit. But according to Catholic doctrine, the Church itself is not tainted or suppressed in any way because the “Church” exists in the sacramental
“pipeline” from God through the duly ordained persons (whether in a state of grace or mortal sin).
This scenario has purposefully put the concept in the extreme, but it does so in order to highlight just what the Catholic understands when he/she says “the Church”. For, please correct me if I am wrong, when the Catholic understands “the Church” he/she is thinking strictly in terms of the sacramental abilities of the offices of Bishops and Priests, and therefore “the Church” has nothing at all, in itself, to do with individual persons who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
Now the Protestant understanding of the Church is that “the Church” consists of the “sum total of the persons indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit”. At the present moment, the Protestant teaching seems to align more with how Scripture defines the Church. Unless of course I am wrong in my above description of the Catholic view. Paul calls the Church the “Body of Christ” and the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” because all of the individuals of the Church are indwelt with Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father. Therefore, the indwelling of the Trinity is what defines one’s participation in the Church and not just outward conformity to the sacraments. Because the “Church” is strictly the community of those who have the Trinity living inside of them, the Church must be the sum total of those scattered throughout the world who really do have the Trinity living inside of them, and hence the “Church” is only visible in the sense that these people are visible, rather than there being a sum total of duly ordained men who do not have the Trinity living inside of them.
How should a Catholic respond to this supposed problem? Is there a way to balance the two extremes?

 

[Miriam1947]

I was watching this video on Catholicism by Father Robert Barron concerning the “Church”. After watching it, my wife and I had this discussion on how Protestants understand the Church and how Catholics understand the Church. Having read the Catholic Catechism on the issue, I have not been able to resolve the discussion that we had and was hoping you could find the crux of the issue.

We understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the “Church” is identified visibly in the hierarchical institution of duly ordained men, whether these duly ordained men are living in mortal or living in virtue. So the Church of Christ is made visible through the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, whether they are unholy or holy. So we suggested thinking hypothetically of the scenario of having the entirety of duly ordained men in the Catholic Church as ungodly in a state of mortal sin. In addition, all laity are likewise in a state of mortal sin. In this scenario (I am not sure if it is even possible), the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments are untainted in the slightest, and so the offering of the Eucharist is maintained just the same, only that the partakers are partaking of God’s judgement and not salvation.

But the difficulty that we are having is thus follows: Given this hypothetical scenario, the Church is still existing in and amongst the sum total of these ungodly ordained men and the ungodly laity. From a protestant perspective, when Christ said “I will be with you until the ends of the Earth”, this implies that the people whom he will be “with” are actually “members of His Body” or “having the Trinity living in them”.

But the problem here is, seemingly, that the Catholic understanding does not have an issue with the above hypothetical scenario being the true Church. In other words, it seems (please correct me if I am wrong) that the Catholic understanding of “Church” is that the full sum total of the duly ordained men and the laity in a state of sin can still be the true Church because of it’s outward unity with the location of the valid sacraments. In this construction, it seems as though the Church can exist without any human beings actually indwelt with the Trinity.

This poses a problem for me, since St. Paul definitely taught that the Church was the living space of God the Holy Spirit, and since only those baptized in the Trinity have this gift of the Holy Spirit, only those who are in a state of grace, sum total, make up the true Church of Christ. I have read Bryan Cross’s article on the Visible Church but I never got a chance to see this specific issue covered, unless I have not understood it fully.
In this above scenario, you have the entire “Catholic Church” in a state of mortal sin, devoid of the Holy Spirit.

But according to Catholic doctrine, the Church itself is not tainted or suppressed in any way because the “Church” exists in the sacramental
“pipeline” from God through the duly ordained persons (whether in a state of grace or mortal sin).

This scenario has purposefully put the concept in the extreme, but it does so in order to highlight just what the Catholic understands when he/she says “the Church”. For, please correct me if I am wrong, when the Catholic understands “the Church” he/she is thinking strictly in terms of the sacramental abilities of the offices of Bishops and Priests, and therefore “the Church” has nothing at all, in itself, to do with individual persons who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.

Now the Protestant understanding of the Church is that “the Church” consists of the “sum total of the persons indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit”. At the present moment, the Protestant teaching seems to align more with how Scripture defines the Church. Unless of course I am wrong in my above description of the Catholic view. Paul calls the Church the “Body of Christ” and the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” because all of the individuals of the Church are indwelt with Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father. Therefore, the indwelling of the Trinity is what defines one’s participation in the Church and not just outward conformity to the sacraments.

Because the “Church” is strictly the community of those who have the Trinity living inside of them, the Church must be the sum total of those scattered throughout the world who really do have the Trinity living inside of them, and hence the “Church” is only visible in the sense that these people are visible, rather than there being a sum total of duly ordained men who do not have the Trinity living inside of them.

How should a Catholic respond to this supposed problem? Is there a way to balance the two extremes?

I made paragraphs because this was unbelievably difficult to read.

I will now take the time to read this and perhaps respond later when I figure out your question.

 

[thenobes]

I think you are confusing the Church with the magisterial authority of the Church.

I was watching this video on Catholicism by Father Robert Barron concerning the “Church”. After watching it, my wife and I had this discussion on how Protestants understand the Church and how Catholics understand the Church. Having read the Catholic Catechism on the issue, I have not been able to resolve the discussion that we had and was hoping you could find the crux of the issue.
We understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the “Church” is identified visibly in the hierarchical institution of duly ordained men, whether these duly ordained men are living in mortal or living in virtue. So the Church of Christ is made visible through the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, whether they are unholy or holy. So we suggested thinking hypothetically of the scenario of having the entirety of duly ordained men in the Catholic Church as ungodly in a state of mortal sin. In addition, all laity are likewise in a state of mortal sin. In this scenario (I am not sure if it is even possible), the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments are untainted in the slightest, and so the offering of the Eucharist is maintained just the same, only that the partakers are partaking of God’s judgement and not salvation. But the difficulty that we are having is thus follows: Given this hypothetical scenario, the Church is still existing in and amongst the sum total of these ungodly ordained men and the ungodly laity. From a protestant perspective, when Christ said “I will be with you until the ends of the Earth”, this implies that the people whom he will be “with” are actually “members of His Body” or “having the Trinity living in them”. But the problem here is, seemingly, that the Catholic understanding does not have an issue with the above hypothetical scenario being the true Church. In other words, it seems (please correct me if I am wrong) that the Catholic understanding of “Church” is that the full sum total of the duly ordained men and the laity in a state of sin can still be the true Church because of it’s outward unity with the location of the valid sacraments. In this construction, it seems as though the Church can exist without any human beings actually indwelt with the Trinity. This poses a problem for me, since St. Paul definitely taught that the Church was the living space of God the Holy Spirit, and since only those baptized in the Trinity have this gift of the Holy Spirit, only those who are in a state of grace, sum total, make up the true Church of Christ. I have read Bryan Cross’s article on the Visible Church but I never got a chance to see this specific issue covered, unless I have not understood it fully.
In this above scenario, you have the entire “Catholic Church” in a state of mortal sin, devoid of the Holy Spirit. But according to Catholic doctrine, the Church itself is not tainted or suppressed in any way because the “Church” exists in the sacramental
“pipeline” from God through the duly ordained persons (whether in a state of grace or mortal sin).
This scenario has purposefully put the concept in the extreme, but it does so in order to highlight just what the Catholic understands when he/she says “the Church”. For, please correct me if I am wrong, when the Catholic understands “the Church” he/she is thinking strictly in terms of the sacramental abilities of the offices of Bishops and Priests, and therefore “the Church” has nothing at all, in itself, to do with individual persons who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
Now the Protestant understanding of the Church is that “the Church” consists of the “sum total of the persons indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit”. At the present moment, the Protestant teaching seems to align more with how Scripture defines the Church. Unless of course I am wrong in my above description of the Catholic view. Paul calls the Church the “Body of Christ” and the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” because all of the individuals of the Church are indwelt with Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father. Therefore, the indwelling of the Trinity is what defines one’s participation in the Church and not just outward conformity to the sacraments. Because the “Church” is strictly the community of those who have the Trinity living inside of them, the Church must be the sum total of those scattered throughout the world who really do have the Trinity living inside of them, and hence the “Church” is only visible in the sense that these people are visible, rather than there being a sum total of duly ordained men who do not have the Trinity living inside of them.
How should a Catholic respond to this supposed problem? Is there a way to balance the two extremes?

The ordained men are so ordained to maintain intact the proper interpretation of Sacred Tradition, and to act in persona Christi when need be. I would not believe would allow all those in His Church to be in mortal sin. It would seem that the gates of hell would have prevailed against the Church, at least for that moment.

peace
steve

 

[Philthy]

The Church is the mystical body of Christ; all those who are united to Christ by grace through faith. It includes the Church triumphant (those in Heaven), the Church suffering (those in Purgatory) and the Church militant (those in a state of grace on earth).
There is a visible element to the Church and a hierarchy to that visible element. It consists of the Pope, bishops, ordained, religious and laity. The distribution of the Sacraments by the ordained is valid because of the office or authority granted to the individual; not because he has “earned it” or “deserves it”. In this sense no one is “worthy” of celebrating Mass or granting absolution, for example, but by virtue of the “authority granted” them( exact words used in confessional) they have the power to do so. It therefore makes perfect sense that their ability to perform their duty is independent of their state of holiness, since their holiness is not the source of their authority - Christ is.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Ok So the question would then be is there two senses of the “Church” ? One being the sum total of those who are truly united to Christ and the other being a visible heirarchial ordination of men who distribute the sacraments, whether they be apart of the mystical body or not?

 

[MaryT777]

Interesting topic…

 

[vsedriver]

In this above scenario, you have the entire “Catholic Church” in a state of mortal sin, devoid of the Holy Spirit.

your premise is not possible, even hypothetically. It would mean that the ‘gates of hell’ have prevailed against Christ’s Church and would mean scripture was false.

 

[Tomster]

your premise is not possible, even hypothetically. It would mean that the ‘gates of hell’ have prevailed against Christ’s Church and would mean scripture was false.

Coupled to that fact is the fact that the Church Triumphant, the saints in heaven, are totally free from all sin. So, the scenario laid out by the OP is starting out with a false premise.

 

[Tomster]

I was watching this video on Catholicism by Father Robert Barron concerning the “Church”. After watching it, my wife and I had this discussion on how Protestants understand the Church and how Catholics understand the Church. Having read the Catholic Catechism on the issue, I have not been able to resolve the discussion that we had and was hoping you could find the crux of the issue.
We understand that the Catholic Church teaches that the “Church” is identified visibly in the hierarchical institution of duly ordained men, whether these duly ordained men are living in mortal or living in virtue. So the Church of Christ is made visible through the ordination of bishops, priests, and deacons, whether they are unholy or holy. So we suggested thinking hypothetically of the scenario of having the entirety of duly ordained men in the Catholic Church as ungodly in a state of mortal sin. In addition, all laity are likewise in a state of mortal sin. In this scenario (I am not sure if it is even possible), the Catholic Church teaches that the sacraments are untainted in the slightest, and so the offering of the Eucharist is maintained just the same, only that the partakers are partaking of God’s judgement and not salvation. But the difficulty that we are having is thus follows: Given this hypothetical scenario, the Church is still existing in and amongst the sum total of these ungodly ordained men and the ungodly laity. From a protestant perspective, when Christ said “I will be with you until the ends of the Earth”, this implies that the people whom he will be “with” are actually “members of His Body” or “having the Trinity living in them”. But the problem here is, seemingly, that the Catholic understanding does not have an issue with the above hypothetical scenario being the true Church. In other words, it seems (please correct me if I am wrong) that the Catholic understanding of “Church” is that the full sum total of the duly ordained men and the laity in a state of sin can still be the true Church because of it’s outward unity with the location of the valid sacraments. In this construction, it seems as though the Church can exist without any human beings actually indwelt with the Trinity. This poses a problem for me, since St. Paul definitely taught that the Church was the living space of God the Holy Spirit, and since only those baptized in the Trinity have this gift of the Holy Spirit, only those who are in a state of grace, sum total, make up the true Church of Christ. I have read Bryan Cross’s article on the Visible Church but I never got a chance to see this specific issue covered, unless I have not understood it fully.
In this above scenario, you have the entire “Catholic Church” in a state of mortal sin, devoid of the Holy Spirit. But according to Catholic doctrine, the Church itself is not tainted or suppressed in any way because the “Church” exists in the sacramental
“pipeline” from God through the duly ordained persons (whether in a state of grace or mortal sin).
This scenario has purposefully put the concept in the extreme, but it does so in order to highlight just what the Catholic understands when he/she says “the Church”. For, please correct me if I am wrong, when the Catholic understands “the Church” he/she is thinking strictly in terms of the sacramental abilities of the offices of Bishops and Priests, and therefore “the Church” has nothing at all, in itself, to do with individual persons who are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
Now the Protestant understanding of the Church is that “the Church” consists of the “sum total of the persons indwelt by God’s Holy Spirit”. At the present moment, the Protestant teaching seems to align more with how Scripture defines the Church. Unless of course I am wrong in my above description of the Catholic view. Paul calls the Church the “Body of Christ” and the “Temple of the Holy Spirit” because all of the individuals of the Church are indwelt with Christ and the Holy Spirit and the Father. Therefore, the indwelling of the Trinity is what defines one’s participation in the Church and not just outward conformity to the sacraments. Because the “Church” is strictly the community of those who have the Trinity living inside of them, the Church must be the sum total of those scattered throughout the world who really do have the Trinity living inside of them, and hence the “Church” is only visible in the sense that these people are visible, rather than there being a sum total of duly ordained men who do not have the Trinity living inside of them.
How should a Catholic respond to this supposed problem? Is there a way to balance the two extremes?

GS,

One must remember that the Reformers substituted the Bible for the Church. From the Reformers straight through our own time the Bible is the sole rule of faith for them. That’s probably the one thing all of the divisions within Protestantism can agree on. And the interpretations of those same Scriptures varies tremendously depending on the individual. The church is secondary and in some cases is not necessary at all.

 

[Tomster]

Ok So the question would then be is there two senses of the “Church” ? One being the sum total of those who are truly united to Christ and the other being a visible heirarchial ordination of men who distribute the sacraments, whether they be apart of the mystical body or not?

The Catholic doctrine on the Church can be found in Scriptures. The Reformed version cannot due to a very faulty understanding of Incarnational theology. The principle subject of the Epistle to the Colossians was the Person of Christ; that of the Epistle to the Ephesians is the Church - an extension of Christ in time and space, the compliment or pleroma of Christ.

The Apostle considers Christ in two very different ways. When he identifies with Christ the true lineage of Abraham, the sum total of believers (Galatians 3:16), when he assert that in baptism we are immersed, buried in Christ (Romans 6:3), when he says that Christ has many members and that we are these members (1 Corinthians 12:2; Galatians 3:27, etc.), he is not speaking of the natural Christ, but of the Mystical Christ. The natural Christ, the Word made flesh, the priest and victim of Calvary, is a part, and indeed the principle part, of the Mystical Christ; but He is not the whole Mystical Christ. The Mystical Christ is the true vine with its branches, it is the wild olive with its boughs, it is Jesus the bridegroom with the Church His bride, it is the Head together with all its members. The natural Christ redeems us, the Mystical Christ sanctifies us; the natural Christ died for us, the Mystical Christ lives in us; the natural Christ reconciles us to His Father, the Mystical Christ unifies us in Him. In a word, the Mystical Christ is the Church completing its Head and completed by Him.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But correct me if I am wrong, when Jesus said that the church would never be overcome by the gates of hell he is strictly referring to the truth of papal infallibility, since the faith and virtuous life’s if a few are not permanent, so it ends up being strictly referring to the chair if Peter which doesn’t even depend on holiness.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

My premise is not false because personal virtue and faith is not what is indefectible in the statement Jesus makes con terning the church standing against all forces of Satan. For catholics, it seems that when Jesus says church he is referring to the infallible office, which itself has no moral prerequisites for proper functioning. And the above hypothetical situation is at a given moment in time, not pervasive of world history. So no false premise.

 

[Evan]

But correct me if I am wrong, when Jesus said that the church would never be overcome by the gates of hell he is strictly referring to the truth of papal infallibility, since the faith and virtuous life’s if a few are not permanent, so it ends up being strictly referring to the chair if Peter which doesn’t even depend on holiness.

Jesus was building his Church on Peter and his confession that Jesus is the son of God the Father. Not being overcome by the gates of hell is not referring to papal infallibility, but the continued existence of Jesus’ Church in the world.

Papal infallibility guarantees the Church will remain true to His message, but there is a LOT of Church things other than an infallible papal proclamation every 2 or 3 centuries.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But then that would come close to a once saved always saved type of program, would it not? If Christ is saying that members of His body will never be overcome with Hades? It seems the context of the passage is that peters binding and loosing are what functionally cause the ever stability of the church, which in this context does not seem to me to be read by catholics as ecclesial individuals but of the papal office.

 

[sennincatholic]

My premise is not false because personal virtue and faith is not what is indefectible in the statement Jesus makes con terning the church standing against all forces of Satan. For catholics, it seems that when Jesus says church he is referring to the infallible office, which itself has no moral prerequisites for proper functioning. And the above hypothetical situation is at a given moment in time, not pervasive of world history. So no false premise.

:doh2:
You got it wrong!

 

[God_Seeker_1]

:doh2:
You got it wrong!

Could you be courteous enough to explain why? Your post seems very uncharitable.

 

[Simpleton]

How I understand it is the Church is both the visible hierarchy and the Christians baptized under the Trinitarian formula. I do though enjoy a hypothetical that takes one part of a belief and then leaves out the reality of what that same faith believes will also happen. For instance the case that everyone is in the state of mortal sin is highly unlikely; however, even if that was the case then all one would need to do is see a priest and confess their sins and the problem is solved. The other thing that is omitted is the belief that God still sends down the grace of conversion to those in mortal sin.

This hypothetical situation is not based on reality therefore its conclusions are void since you have kept any answer other than the one you want, from coming to light. You cant take away reality and hope to arrive at the truth of a matter.

 

[paul_c]

There is obviously confusion over the Catholic understanding of who belongs to the church. here is what the catechism says:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but ‘in body’ not ‘in heart.’"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

So FULL membership in the church means to accept what the church teaches, including the heirarchy and the means of salvation, and are joined in the visible structure of the church. It has nothing to do with the personal holiness of that hierarchy. And note, that being a member of the church does not guarantee heaven.

Note, in God seeker’s extreme case that everyone was in mortal sin, they would still be members of the church if they continued to believe in what the church teaches and continued to be in communion with the Pope. Of course, one trip to confession and the mortal sin factor is removed.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

And this is why I stressed the hypothetical scenario because in catholic theology, the church is not a community where the holy spirit indwells the human being making them righteous and holy people, as the protestants, but rather believe the church is a society that can be totally populated with lost and unholy human beings. The problem now is that St. Paul describes the baptized, and therefore those in the body, are enslaved to righteousness, and that to live in sin is death, and therefore not partaking in the body. How should a catholic reconcile this?

 

[sennincatholic]

And this is why I stressed the hypothetical scenario because in catholic theology, the church is not a community where the holy spirit indwells the human being making them righteous and holy people, as the protestants, but rather believe the church is a society that can be totally populated with lost and unholy human beings. The problem now is that St. Paul describes the baptized, and therefore those in the body, are enslaved to righteousness, and that to live in sin is death, and therefore not partaking in the body. How should a catholic reconcile this?

I don’t seem to understand why exactly you created this thread!Previous posts on this thread have tried to explain in the best possible way what The Church is from the point of view of Catholics but u seem to have ignored all of these posts and now you are trying to impose on us what you erroneously think the Catholic Church teaches about what the church is…Read posts 4…7 and 8 again.Your hypothesis is simplYIMPOSSIBLE. Somebody has even quoted the Catechism of the Catholic church but you dont want to learn!I am sorry but you are the uncharitable person here.