The Body of Christ

[T_More]

You know, I’ve watched the “Defense of Sola Scriptura” thread develop for a long time. Some have stated that all denominations make up the body of Christ, so it essentially doesn’t matter if you aren’t Catholic. Well, let me ask, as a former JW, are JW’s part of this body? They don’t believe in the divinity of Christ and they don’t believe in a heaven for all, and yet they claim to be Christian like everyone else. They claim to have “the truth” and that the WTS is the sole channel of God. They use a bible, albeit a very tampered one, so where do they stand? Is there a point where they have drifted too far? How do you know? Where’s the line that should not be crossed and still be considered part of Christ’s body, and what’s the critieria for determing that? If they have gone too far, what determines that your religion hasn’t?

 

[mariahloves]

I’m not sure what the Catholic Church’s offical teaching (if there is one) on this particular situation but I would have to say they would not be included since they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That is what makes someone Christian. To me, they are as far from Christianity as a Muslim or Hindu.

 

[Matariel]

In Catholic teaching, the Catholic Church— on Earth, in Purgatory, and in Heaven— constitutes the mystical Body of Christ. Baptized Catholics who profess the fullness of the Catholic faith compose the Catholic Church. The only exceptions to this are some baptized people in invincible ignorance who may be a part of God’s Church, even if visibly separated from it. So, for a Catholic Christian, the Catholic Church IS the Mystical Body of Christ. And the Bride of Christ. And every other biblical description of the Church. The Protestant denominations, as institutions, are not, in the Catholic view, parts of the Body of Christ, although the Church affirms they may contains “some elements of sanctification and truth”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

You know, I’ve watched the “Defense of Sola Scriptura” thread develop for a long time. Some have stated that all denominations make up the body of Christ, so it essentially doesn’t matter if you aren’t Catholic. Well, let me ask, as a former JW, are JW’s part of this body? They don’t believe in the divinity of Christ and they don’t believe in a heaven for all, and yet they claim to be Christian like everyone else. They claim to have “the truth” and that the WTS is the sole channel of God. They use a bible, albeit a very tampered one, so where do they stand? Is there a point where they have drifted too far? How do you know? Where’s the line that should not be crossed and still be considered part of Christ’s body, and what’s the critieria for determing that? If they have gone too far, what determines that your religion hasn’t?

For the Lutheran opinion on this matter, we would hold that any church that cannot confess any of the ecumenical creeds is not a functioning Christian church body. Since JW’s (as well as Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals, et al) cannot agree with these creeds, they are outside the Body of Christ.

 

[Matariel]

For the Lutheran opinion on this matter, we would hold that any church that cannot confess any of the ecumenical creeds is not a functioning Christian church body. Since JW’s (as well as Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals, et al) cannot agree with these creeds, they are outside the Body of Christ.

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but isn’t this an arbitrary test? What/who designated that the “ecumenical” creeds (I assume you mean the Nicene, Apostle’s, and Athanasian) are what determines the constitution of the Body of Christ?

Secondly, from a Catholic perspective, we would not consider Lutheran or Presbyterians or any other Protestant group who recites the Apostle’s/Nicene Creed as truly adhering to the same Creed, as their interpretation of the words “the holy Catholic Church” are totally and completely different from Catholic interpretation, or, we believe, the original intent of the Catholic bishops who authored it.

My two cents.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I don’t mean this disrespectfully, but isn’t this an arbitrary test? What/who designated that the “ecumenical” creeds (I assume you mean the Nicene, Apostle’s, and Athanasian) are what determines the constitution of the Body of Christ?

No, I don’t think it’s arbitrary at all. The ecumenical creeds define the basic understanding of the Trinity, the Person of Christ, His work on the cross, the creation of the world, etc. They contain the fundamental teachings of the faith, and are therefore universal in application. It doesn’t tell us whether the church is orthodox in every point of doctrine, but to disagree with any of their articles has always been a benchmark of heresy.

Secondly, from a Catholic perspective, we would not consider Lutheran or Presbyterians or any other Protestant group who recites the Apostle’s/Nicene Creed as truly adhering to the same Creed, as their interpretation of the words “the holy Catholic Church” are totally and completely different from Catholic interpretation, or, we believe, the original intent of the Catholic bishops who authored it.

That may be true. I don’t necessarily disagree that certain aspects to them may have different interpretations. However, disagreeing about the nature of the catholic church is quite different than disagreeing with the nature of the Trinity. Besides, Rome would define the visible church as the Pope with the Magisterium, but both Rome and us do say that those who are baptized and have faith in Christ are still part of Christ’s body, hence, it’s “catholic.”

 

[Matariel]

No, I don’t think it’s arbitrary at all. The ecumenical creeds define the basic understanding of the Trinity, the Person of Christ, His work on the cross, the creation of the world, etc. They contain the fundamental teachings of the faith, and are therefore universal in application. It doesn’t tell us whether the church is orthodox in every point of doctrine, but to disagree with any of their articles has always been a benchmark of heresy.

But where is the line drawn that something is “too heretical” to any longer be deemed, as you say, “a true church of Christ”? Who, from a Protestant point-of-view, has decided the “ecumenical” creeds (again, I assume you mean the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian) were the deciding factor, from a Protestant standpoint? Of course, in the Catholic standpoint the Church can and does decide, but Protestants do not have a unified “Church” or Magisterium to look to, to make these kinds of pronouncements, or an infallible way of ascertaining questions like this.

That may be true. I don’t necessarily disagree that certain aspects to them may have different interpretations. However, disagreeing about the nature of the catholic church is quite different than disagreeing with the nature of the Trinity.

Yes, but we consider both extremely essential; most Protestants seem to hold to a kind of Nestorian ecclesiology— or a Donatistic ecclesiology. To us this is simply the result of private interpretation of the Scriptures without, in our view, the God-ordained authority of the one Catholic Church. Besides this, ecclesiology is very important, even setting aside our agreement on the Holy Trinity.

Besides, Rome would define the visible church as the Pope with the Magisterium, but both Rome and us do say that those who are baptized and have faith in Christ are still part of Christ’s body, hence, it’s “catholic.”

Not quite so. We do not believe in a separation of an “invisible” Church and a"visible Church, even though the one Church has both aspects. However, the visible aspect is not only the Pope and the college of bishops (properly speaking, the Magisterium encompasses both) but also the laity.

From the* Baltimore Catechism*:

Q. 489. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the congregation of all those who profess the faith of Christ, partake of the same Sacraments, and are governed by their lawful pastors under one visible Head *.

Q. 490. How may the members of the Church on earth be divided?

A. The members of the Church on earth may be divided into those who teach and those who are taught. Those who teach, namely, the Pope, bishops and priests, are called the Teaching Church, or simply the Church. Those who are taught are called the Believing Church, or simply the faithful.*

The only exceptions to this are those Protestants and others in invincible ignorance or those with the Baptism of Desire at the point of death.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But where is the line drawn that something is “too heretical” to any longer be deemed, as you say, “a true church of Christ”? Who, from a Protestant point-of-view, has decided the “ecumenical” creeds (again, I assume you mean the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian) were the deciding factor, from a Protestant standpoint? Of course, in the Catholic standpoint the Church can and does decide, but Protestants do not have a unified “Church” or Magisterium to look to, to make these kinds of pronouncements, or an infallible way of ascertaining questions like this.

That there are many churches that fall under the label Protestant does not mean that the church body in question is not unified. For example, as a Lutheran, when deciding what is and is not a heretical opinion, I look to the confessions of the Lutheran church. We may not consider it to be infallible, but it will let us know what is and is not a correct opinion, according to the teachings of Scripture.

Yes, but we consider both extremely essential; most Protestants seem to hold to a kind of Nestorian ecclesiology— or a Donatistic ecclesiology. To us this is simply the result of private interpretation of the Scriptures without, in our view, the God-ordained authority of the one Catholic Church. Besides this, ecclesiology is very important, even setting aside our agreement on the Holy Trinity.

I cannot speak to other Protestant bodies on their ecclesiology. We, however, follow the model layed out by St. Augustine. I can understand why you may consider a visible/invisible church view to be Nestorian. However, it isn’t, since there is no definite split between the two. The visible church is simply that part of the church which we can see, versus that which only God can see, namely, faith. There are tares alongside the wheat. We cannot infallibly tell the difference.

Not quite so. We do not believe in a separation of an “invisible” Church and a"visible Church, even though the one Church has both aspects. However, the visible aspect is not only the Pope and the college of bishops (properly speaking, the Magisterium encompasses both) but also the laity.

Yes, that’s true viz a vie the laity. I simply used that as an authority referent. My only point being that we both agree that there is only one church, and all validly baptized Christians are part of it (assuming they remain in the faith).

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Sola scriptura did give birth to everything from soup to nuts like the J-Dubs, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Pentecostals and other “interesting” groups. Sola scriptura has no central authority and assumes Scripture is self-interpreting and, as a result, you get a zillion different takes on this “self-interpreting” text. The result is chaos.

What I find bizarre about Protestant groups like Lutherans and Anglicans (both whom I respect the most in Protestant circles) is how they claim to stay faithful and focused on the early councils of the Church. It’s like they’re living off councils that existed hundreds and hundreds of years ago and there are no new councils they participate in that are ecumenical like those early ones? The Church should be vibrant, living, breathing, and constantly clarifying and explaining. Not just 1,600 years ago but now in 2010. We can’t live only off the remains of councils that existed in antiquity but we must still have these councils today, and a central authority figure to make sense of it all. Scripture alone won’t do?

 

[Matariel]

That there are many churches that fall under the label Protestant does not mean that the church body in question is not unified. For example, as a Lutheran, when deciding what is and is not a heretical opinion, I look to the confessions of the Lutheran church. We may not consider it to be infallible, but it will let us know what is and is not a correct opinion, according to the teachings of Scripture.

But others would disagree that the confessions of the Lutheran denominations are “what is and what is not a correct opinion”, or even that they are in accord with Scripture. So this is an impasse, if all different Protestant denominations rely on their own confessions, even while denying that they are God-ordained or authoritative spiritually.

I cannot speak to other Protestant bodies on their ecclesiology. We, however, follow the model layed out by St. Augustine. I can understand why you may consider a visible/invisible church view to be Nestorian. However, it isn’t, since there is no definite split between the two.

I disagree. Some visible “churches” in this view do not have any of the invisible “Church” in them; and then are there many Incarnations just as there are many different “churches” connected to this one amorphous invisible reality? You see, this kind of disordered ecclesiology was one of the reasons I left Protestantism disillusioned, and am now Catholic. I pray for unity, but at the same time I fully acknowledge that there is one Church, and that one Church is the visible unified society of Jesus on Earth, united in faith, the sacraments, under the care of the true successors of the Apostles, the bishops, and under the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome, from which the unity of the Church comes and “from which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Church Father St. Cyprian).

The visible church is simply that part of the church which we can see, versus that which only God can see, namely, faith. There are tares alongside the wheat. We cannot infallibly tell the difference.

I see it differently, I see the Body of the Church as baptized Catholics, good or bad (wheat and tares) and the Soul of the Church as the Holy Spirit, who acts through the successors of the Apostles, the bishops, especially the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, that’s true viz a vie the laity. I simply used that as an authority referent. My only point being that we both agree that there is only one church, and all validly baptized Christians are part of it (assuming they remain in the faith).

Yes, but validly baptized Protestants are still, from a Catholic viewpoint, in impaired communion with the Catholic Church and are in a damaged relationship. And this is, we believe, only because Baptism is one of the Catholic Church’s sacraments. For Protestant Christians to exist in a repaired state of communion with the whole Church, they must become Catholics.

In other words, baptized persons in Protestantism are in an unnatural state of estrangement from the Church, even while the visible, Catholic sacrament of Baptism has bound them to the Church— even though their communion with the rest of the Church is gravely impaired.

 

[TriuneUnity]

But others would disagree that the confessions of the Lutheran denominations are “what is and what is not a correct opinion”, or even that they are in accord with Scripture. So this is an impasse, if all different Protestant denominations rely on their own confessions, even while denying that they are God-ordained or authoritative spiritually.

We do say they are authoritative. Authority does not have to be infallible in order to be authoritative. And yes, other denominations will disagree with the Lutheran confessions; but frankly, I don’t care what the Baptists think.

I disagree. Some visible “churches” in this view do not have any of the invisible “Church” in them; and then are there many Incarnations just as there are many different “churches” connected to this one amorphous invisible reality? You see, this kind of disordered ecclesiology was one of the reasons I left Protestantism disillusioned, and am now Catholic. I pray for unity, but at the same time I fully acknowledge that there is one Church, and that one Church is the visible unified society of Jesus on Earth, united in faith, the sacraments, under the care of the true successors of the Apostles, the bishops, and under the universal primacy of the Bishop of Rome, from which the unity of the Church comes and “from which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Church Father St. Cyprian).

Wherever the word is preached and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution (how we would define a visible church) there will be members of the invisible church present. There is no such thing as a visible church without the invisible church present.

I see it differently, I see the Body of the Church as baptized Catholics, good or bad (wheat and tares) and the Soul of the Church as the Holy Spirit, who acts through the successors of the Apostles, the bishops, especially the Bishop of Rome.

Unbelievers cannot, by definition, be members of the Body of Christ. Unbelievers are not in union with Christ and hence are not members of the Church.

Yes, but validly baptized Protestants are still, from a Catholic viewpoint, in impaired communion with the Catholic Church and are in a damaged relationship. And this is, we believe, only because Baptism is one of the Catholic Church’s sacraments. For Protestant Christians to exist in a repaired state of communion with the whole Church, they must become Catholics.

Impairment doesn’t mean non-existence, however. I understand your point, but it’s not relevant to the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes one Church, of which Protestants are part. We would hold the same view (albeit from differing angles).

 

[Matariel]

We do say they are authoritative. Authority does not have to be infallible in order to be authoritative.

I would not want to place myself, in matters of faith and morals, under a fallible authority.

And yes, other denominations will disagree with the Lutheran confessions; but frankly, I don’t care what the Baptists think.

They believe their doctrines come from the Bible alone; you believe your doctrines come from the Bible alone. This is irreconcilable and an impasse without a legitimate authority that can clarify and interpret areas of contention.

Wherever the word is preached and the sacraments are administered according to Christ’s institution (how we would define a visible church) there will be members of the invisible church present. There is no such thing as a visible church without the invisible church present.

Still though, this goes back to the problem of division. Christ’s Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. To say there are many visible Churches is to deny that Christ’s Church is one; this is impossible and irreconcilable to apostolic Christian faith.

Unbelievers cannot, by definition, be members of the Body of Christ. Unbelievers are not in union with Christ and hence are not members of the Church.

Not true. They will remain in the Church until the end, where, according to the parable, they will be rooted out by Christ himself. By Baptism, they are baptized in Christ and incorporated into the Church (is this not what Baptism is?) and this is a point I thought even Lutherans agreed on.

Impairment doesn’t mean non-existence, however.

True. Though impaired, it is a real communion. But it is unnatural and unintended.

I understand your point, but it’s not relevant to the fact that the Catholic Church recognizes one Church, of which Protestants are part. We would hold the same view (albeit from differing angles).

I partially agree. The state that Protestants exist in, in relation to the Church is unnatural and unintended and a wound to the unity of the Catholic Church. However, the unity of the Church is not extinguished by this, as baptism is the visible, sacramental tie to the Catholic Church.

I pray for unity. We Christians would be 100% more effective in converting the world if we were all to reconcile to the Catholic Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I would not want to place myself, in matters of faith and morals, under a fallible authority.

And how do you know that the authority is infallible?

They believe their doctrines come from the Bible alone; you believe your doctrines come from the Bible alone. This is irreconcilable and an impasse without a legitimate authority that can clarify and interpret areas of contention.

You may view it as an impasse. I do not, however, base what I believe on whether it squares with Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist interpretations.

Not true. They will remain in the Church until the end, where, according to the parable, they will be rooted out by Christ himself. By Baptism, they are baptized in Christ and incorporated into the Church (is this not what Baptism is?) and this is a point I thought even Lutherans agreed on.

They have never been a part of the true Church, even if they were members of a congregation. Certainly the Last Judgment will reveal them to never have been a part of it. By definition, unbelievers have rejected their baptism, even if they were regenerate at one time through the Sacrament. If they are outwardly professing faith, however, the visible church can only take their word for it (unless their actions prove otherwise), since we cannot know their hearts.

 

[Matariel]

And how do you know that the authority is infallible?

Because the Scripture tells us; because Sacred Tradition tells us; because Christian history tells us; and because the Church agrees in this and tells us the same.

They have never been a part of the true Church, even if they were members of a congregation. Certainly the Last Judgment will reveal them to never have been a part of it. By definition, unbelievers have rejected their baptism…

Unbelief and rebellion against the faith cannot undo the effects of a sacrament of Christ. They are members of the Body of Christ, even if dead, diseased and putrid, and they will be cut off at the end of time, as Christ separates the weeds from the tares.

St. Robert Bellarmine may help:

"An evil bishop, a bad priest, a layman in grievous sin are dead members of the Body of Christ, and therefore not true members, if we understand ‘member’ in the strict sense of an integral part of a living body. However, these same ‘dead members’ are very vital members if we consider them as instruments of activity within the Church. So that the Pope and bishops are real heads, the teachers and preachers are real eyes and tongues of the Body of Christ, even when they have fallen from the grace of God. For while it is true that a Christian becomes a living member of this Body through charity, yet in the Providence of God the instruments of operation in the Church are constituted by the power of orders and jurisdiction, which can be obtained and exercised even by a man who is personally an enemy of God.
“Hence the great difference between a physical body, in which a dead member cannot serve as a vital instrument, and the supernatural Mystical Body, where this is not only possible but actually happens. To explain the paradox we should recall that in natural bodies their work depends entirely on the health and soundness of the organs by which they act. But the Mystical Body of Christ can operate independently of the virtue and vitality of its members, because the soul of this Body, which is the Holy Spirit, can function equally through good instruments as through bad, through instruments that are alive as through those which are dead.”