The Body of Christ And The Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anna_Scott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steve,
Does that mean that one who is Baptized outside the Catholic Church, and never enters into Communion with Rome, receives no further Graces; and therefore falls outside the Church/Body of Christ?
Of course not. One does not have to be Catholic to receive grace from God. The point I was trying to make is that many denominations have rejected everything about the Church except for the Bible. Now they have also been Baptised. Can one be in communion with that which they reject? As I have said, and you have agreed, we are in communion to the extent that we share in the Apostolic faith; all of it.
Wouldn’t that be a road that does not lead to salvation, according to Catholic Doctrine?
Possibly. I think it is more difficult to make it to heaven without the aid of the sacraments. I try to imagine a life without the sacraments; no reconciliation with God; no communion with him in the Eucharist.

I truly believe that God pours out his graces upon all who believe in him with a sincere heart. But that does not stop one who believes in OSAS from committing a mortal sin and never having it absolved because he believes he is already saved. There are great dangers in many of the errors that can indeed lead one down a road that is not salvation.
 
. . .Surely the Anglo-Catholics (early 19th century) affirm the Catholic heritage and identity rather than the Protestant heritage…but that still doesn’t make them fully Catholic. The communion is almost full, though, and we can say: digitus Dei est hic!
R_C,

“Not fully Catholic” brings us back to the idea of degrees again; just as not being in “full Communion” with the Church/Body of Christ. 😉

Anna
 
Anna…as a former Baptist…the view of the “church” is that the faithful are the church or Body of Christ and Christ is the head.

They do not believe that the Body(Church) is the actual Catholic Church but rather simply the faithful people. That is a Southern Baptist view of it.
aidanbradypop,

I know. I’m a former Southern Baptist too. 😃

Anna
That is where many have a hard time giving the Church authority.
aidanbradypop,

Another Sidebar:
[Actually, I got into a whole lot of trouble on a Baptist forum (while I was still in the Baptist Church) for saying that Baptist ministers often expect as much submission to their teachings as the Pope expects of Catholics. Didn’t go over very well. :ouch:]

Anna
 
aidanbradypop,

Another Sidebar:
[Actually, I got into a whole lot of trouble on a Baptist forum (while I was still in the Baptist Church) for saying that Baptist ministers often expect as much submission to their teachings as the Pope expects of Catholics. Didn’t go over very well. :ouch:]

Anna
Naughty girl
 
Of course not. One does not have to be Catholic to receive grace from God. The point I was trying to make is that many denominations have rejected everything about the Church except for the Bible. Now they have also been Baptised. Can one be in communion with that which they reject? As I have said, and you have agreed, we are in communion to the extent that we share in the Apostolic faith; all of it.

Possibly. I think it is more difficult to make it to heaven without the aid of the sacraments. I try to imagine a life without the sacraments; no reconciliation with God; no communion with him in the Eucharist.

I truly believe that God pours out his graces upon all who believe in him with a sincere heart. But that does not stop one who believes in OSAS from committing a mortal sin and never having it absolved because he believes he is already saved. There are great dangers in many of the errors that can indeed lead one down a road that is not salvation.
Steve,

Well said.

As you know; I left a OSAS Church, because I discovered the Apostolic faith had been so watered down, it was unrecognizable

I agree, as you said, “There are great dangers in many of the errors that can indeed lead one down a road that is not salvation.”

Actually. . . . . I’m beginning to understand that there really are degrees of Communion with the Church/Body of Christ. :newidea:

Anna
 
Dear Anna, please read the Catholic Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium. Then you will know what every Catholic believes and professes on this delicate matter.
Christ, the one Mediator, established and continually sustains here on earth His holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity, as an entity with visible delineation through which He communicated truth and grace to all.
👍

Also, noted and appreciate your post #9. 🙂 Very helpful.

Anna
 
Of course not. One does not have to be Catholic to receive grace from God. The point I was trying to make is that many denominations have rejected everything about the Church except for the Bible. Now they have also been Baptised. Can one be in communion with that which they reject? As I have said, and you have agreed, we are in communion to the extent that we share in the Apostolic faith; all of it. . . . .
Steve,

Along the same lines; I really hope to see more participation on your Unity in the Eucharist thread, because I think there has been so much departure from the Apostolic faith in much of Protestantism.

And—sadly, I’m seeing some bad turns within TEC.

Anna
 
Steve,

Actually. . . . . I’m beginning to understand that there really are degrees of Communion with the Church/Body of Christ. :newidea:

Anna
Yes, there are even degrees of communion with the Body of Christ on a personal level among members of the same faith tradition.
 
Steve,

Along the same lines; I really hope to see more participation on your Unity in the Eucharist thread, because I think there has been so much departure from the Apostolic faith in much of Protestantism.

And—sadly, I’m seeing some bad turns within TEC.

Anna
Yes, it is the Eucharist that truly makes us one Body. Christ dwells in us and we dwell in him. That is unity and that is one body in Christ; the Church. If a body is not one it cannot function as a body. Those who imagine unity in the Body of Christ absent the Eucharist imagine a body without a head. Without the head the body cannot live and without the Eucharist there is no Body of Christ. Its that important.
 
Yes, it is the Eucharist that truly makes us one Body. Christ dwells in us and we dwell in him. That is unity and that is one body in Christ; the Church. If a body is not one it cannot function as a body. Those who imagine unity in the Body of Christ absent the Eucharist imagine a body without a head. Without the head the body cannot live and without the Eucharist there is no Body of Christ. Its that important.
Nice post. 👍
 
=Anna Scott;10511574]There have been many discussions regarding the way Catholics view non-Catholic Christians or “separated brethren.”
So, I thought it would be good to ask this question: Do you believe there is a difference between the Body of Christ and the Church?
I would love to hear your definitions of both and an explanation regarding whether or not they are one and the same or two different things altogether.
Thanks,
Anna
The SAD REALITY is that of course their is.

We hold that God is One

“One [Perfect at that] God” cannot possibly hold differing views on the same defined issues.

Jesus invented the therm “church” [Mt. 16;18-19] to make clear the following

Pagans would have their temples and a varity of ever-changing beliefs

Jews their Synagogues and their OT / Old Covenant beliefs

“Christ followers” The Way/ Christians/ Catholics would have HIS CHURCH [singular] with His One set of Faith beliefs [singular]

Because the bible was fully written by the end of the First Century we can be certain that EVERY use of the term “church” in the bible refers to todays Catholics Church

Psalms 127:1
“Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.”

Romans 13: 1-4
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Acts.20: 28
“Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God [SINGULAR] which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.”

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

God never intended for their to be ANY but His one catholic church. Amen.
 
Because the bible was fully written by the end of the First Century we can be certain that EVERY use of the term “church” in the bible refers to todays Catholics Church

God never intended for their to be ANY but His one catholic church. Amen.

The first generation Christians were Jews and gentiles with many differences one of which was circumcision which caused a dispute between Paul and Peter. The seven churches in the book of revelation were not united. Each one had its own issue to be dealt with and no church was referred to as Catholic. We don’t know what they thought about the Eucharist or the pope and they didn’t celebrate the mass but they were the body of Christ.
 
The first generation Christians were Jews and gentiles with many differences one of which was circumcision which caused a dispute between Paul and Peter. The seven churches in the book of revelation were not united. Each one had its own issue to be dealt with and no church was referred to as Catholic. We don’t know what they thought about the Eucharist or the pope and they didn’t celebrate the mass but they were the body of Christ.
You are correct that there was a distpute concerning circumcision. And what did they do? They brought the matter before the Church at the Council of Jerusalem and it was settled. This proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to assert. When there were issues they were brought before the Church headed by Peter and the Apostles. We know for certain that this Church was called “Catholic” at least as early as the second century and probably as early as the first century. And we do know what they thought about the Eucharist, from both the Scriptures and the writings of the early Church Fathers. And yes, they did celebrate Mass. We have an account of the Mass from Justin Martyr from the second century describing what Christians do when they gather. He describes in detail, the Mass.
 
You are correct that there was a distpute concerning circumcision. And what did they do? They brought the matter before the Church at the Council of Jerusalem and it was settled. This proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to assert. When there were issues they were brought before the Church headed by Peter and the Apostles. We know for certain that this Church was called “Catholic” at least as early as the second century and probably as early as the first century. And we do know what they thought about the Eucharist, from both the Scriptures and the writings of the early Church Fathers. And yes, they did celebrate Mass. We have an account of the Mass from Justin Martyr from the second century describing what Christians do when they gather. He describes in detail, the Mass.
From talking with a few Protestant friends, it makes it extremely hard to try and explain the Papacy and the authority of the Church if one simply believes the the Body (Church) is simply the believers. You are going down the road and booooom dead end when it comes to that topic lol.
 
You are correct that there was a distpute concerning circumcision. And what did they do? They brought the matter before the Church at the Council of Jerusalem and it was settled. This proves exactly the opposite of what you are trying to assert.
I’m trying to assert that the churches in the bible were not today’s Catholic Church. This was what I was responding to:
Because the bible was fully written by the end of the First Century we can be certain that EVERY use of the term “church” in the bible refers to todays Catholics Church
When there were issues they were brought before the Church headed by Peter and the Apostles. We know for certain that this Church was called “Catholic” at least as early as the second century and probably as early as the first century. And we do know what they thought about the Eucharist, from both the Scriptures and the writings of the early Church Fathers. And yes, they did celebrate Mass. We have an account of the Mass from Justin Martyr from the second century describing what Christians do when they gather. He describes in detail, the Mass.
This is what happened at their mass which was on Saturday because Saturday is the Sabbath day and they were Jewish.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
 
I appreciate all the comments.

Understanding the word “Catholic” certainly does apply to the question in my OP regarding whether or not the Body of Christ and the Church are one and the same.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has an excellent history of the word “Catholic,” and the way in which it has evolved. The article opens with “The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense.”

The universal sense is the way in which Anglicans, at least in our Parish, use the word Catholic, as we profess belief in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church through the Nicene Creed in our Liturgy. It is interesting to note that the Catholic Encyclopedia article refers to “confused thinkers of the Anglican Communion,” regarding use of the word “Catholic.”

The article goes on to say, “. . . .Although belief in the “holy Church” was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century. Kattenbusch believes that our existing form is first met with in the “Exhortatio” which he attributes to Gregorius of Eliberis (c. 360). . . .”

The article does make a good case for “Catholic” as used by Catholics in Communion with Rome, today.

Even if the word “Catholic” is defined as “universal,” rather than an exclusive reference to Catholics in Communion with Rome; it still leads us to the undeniable fact that there is only one Body of Christ and One Church (which are one and the same.)

I think the biggest issue between Catholics in Communion with Rome and non-Catholic Christians is not One Body and One Church; but Rome’s claim to authority over all of Christendom—which is a topic often discussed on CAF and is not the emphasis of this particular thread.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
791
The body’s unity does not do away with the diversity of its members: "In the building up of Christ’s Body there is engaged a diversity of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to his own richness and the needs of the ministries, gives his different gifts for the welfare of the Church."222 The unity of the Mystical Body produces and stimulates charity among the faithful: "From this it follows that if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with him, and if one member is honored, all the members together rejoice."223

Finally, the unity of the Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."224

So, the CCC of the Catholic Church does say that the baptized into Christ have put on Christ and the “Mystical Body triumphs over all human divisions.” Yet, we are still considered “separated brethren,” a label we do not reciprocate when speaking of Catholics in Communion with Rome.

Anna
 
=Anna Scott;10518275]I appreciate all the excellent replies everyone. 🙂
I do believe the Body of Christ and the Church are one and the same. What is confusing to me about Catholic doctrine is the idea that those of us not in Communion with Rome, who are Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, become (according to Rome) part of the Body of Christ which is the same as the Church. Yet, somehow our status is relegated to something akin to one foot in the door of the Church and one foot out. It seems that one is either part of the Body of Christ or one is not.
If you consider us to be your “separated brethren”; does that mean you believe we are separated from Christ?
That’s God’s call.

But their is no doubt hat Christ who is one; founded only one church and has one set of faith beliefs Anyone outside of those beliefs is opposed to His Divine Will.

Let’s pray for unity GOD"S way…
 
I’m trying to assert that the churches in the bible were not today’s Catholic Church. This was what I was responding to:
So far you have not come close to proving that.
This is what happened at their mass which was on Saturday because Saturday is the Sabbath day and they were Jewish.

1 Corinthians 14:27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.
Paul is simply giving some rules about the appropriate use ot tongues. This has nothing to do with the Mass.

From the First Apology of Justin, ch. 65: An Early Description of the Catholic Mass (written about 150 A.D.)

*"After we have thus washed the one who has believed and has assented, we lead him to where those who are called brethren are gathered, offering prayers in common and heartily for ourselves and for the one who has been illuminated, and for all others everywhere, so that we may be accounted worthy, now even that we have learned the truth, to be found keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an eternal salvation. Having concluded the prayers, we greet one another with a kiss. Then there is brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of water and of watered wine [the text followed by two other two genitive case terms indicating that both the water and watered wine are in the same cup], and taking them, he gives praise and glory to the Father of all, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; and he himself gives thanks at some length in order that these things may be deemed worthy.

When the prayers and thanksgiving are completed, all the people present call out their consent, saying ‘Amen!’ ‘Amen’ in the Hebrew language signifies ‘so be it.’ After the president has given thanks, and all the people have shouted their assent, those whom we call deacons give to each one present to partake of the Eucharistic bread and wine and water; and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who has been washed in the washing [baptism] which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [2 Pet 3:21], and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him [see 1 Cor 11: 23-26; Lk 22; 19] and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished is both the flesh and blood of the incarnated Jesus [see John 6: 53-56].

The apostles, in the Memoirs which they produced, which we called Gospels, have thus passed on that which was enjoined upon them: that Jesus took bread and, having given thanks, said, ‘Do this in remembrance of Me; this is My Body’ [Lk 22:19; Mt 26:26; Mk 14: 22: 1 Cor 11: 23-24]. And in like manner, taking the cup, and having given thanks, He said, ‘This is my Blood’ [Lk 22:20; Mt 26: 27-28; Mk 14:24; 1 Cor 11: 25]. And He imparted this to them only. The evil demons, however, have passed on its imitation in the mysteries of Mithra [pagan cult]. For as you know or are able to learn, bread and a cup of water together with certain incantations are used in imitation to the mystic rites." *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top