What is "the Church"?

[jinc1019]

I know this seems like such an obvious question, but after thinking about it…I am really not entirely sure. If “the Church” involves only those bishops and parishes in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean the Eastern Orthodox churches are not in “the Church” even though they can actually trace their bishops back to apostles? What about Anglo-Catholics who have recovered apostolic succession and can trace their Holy Orders back to Augustine and St. Peter?

I can understand, not necessarily agree, with the argument that “the Church” must involve bishops in apostolic succession, but what about the valid bishops who are not in communion with Rome?

 

[1ke]

I suggest you refer to the section of the Catechism on “the Church” to get a full picture of the different meanings of this phrase.

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Church is where the bishop is, and the people are gathered around him, and Christ is present among them (in the Eucharist).

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Church is the Catholic Church, also called the Roman Catholic Church though this term is sometimes also used more narrowly to refer to the Latin Church specifically. Someone is therefore “in” or “part of” this Church to the degree to which they are “in” or “part of” the Catholic Church, as they are the same thing or, to phrase it differently, as the Church founded by Jesus Christ subsists fully and completely in the Catholic Church.

This incorporation into the Catholic Church can be viewed from many different angles, like those of faith, grace, community, bishops, baptism, the Eucharist. If the subject could be reduced or summarized to one thing perhaps we could make it the transformative encounter of man with God, through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit.

 

[ee01165]

I am a practicing Catholic and in my mind, the Church is nothing more and nothing less than a vehicle provided to us to practice our following of Christ. In the final analysis, we are bound by the conscience within us that hopefully is informed and guides us in our practice to follow Christ. If we believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s representative on this earth, no matter how many human errors exist either inside or outside of the Church, and no matter how many plausible alternatives may surround us, we are bound to our practice of transubstantiation and communion.
I offer two other points. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great doctor of the Church, says that even an erring conscience must be followed and that is why we must be tolerant of others. We must assume they are following the conscience within them that is guiding them in their pursuit of Christ’s mission for them. That tolerance, of course, does not excuse us from pursuing our own vision of the mission Christ has for us.
Since Christ is not here telling us who is right and who is wrong, we must make those decisions on our own, as did our predecessors, and we must face some probability of human error. However, John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted to Catholicism, said, in effect, authority is what separates the Roman Catholic Church from all others.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am a practicing Catholic and in my mind, the Church is nothing more and nothing less than a vehicle provided to us to practice our following of Christ. In the final analysis, we are bound by the conscience within us that hopefully is informed and guides us in our practice to follow Christ. If we believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s representative on this earth, no matter how many human errors exist either inside or outside of the Church, and no matter how many plausible alternatives may surround us, we are bound to our practice of transubstantiation and communion.
I offer two other points. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great doctor of the Church, says that even an erring conscience must be followed and that is why we must be tolerant of others. We must assume they are following the conscience within them that is guiding them in their pursuit of Christ’s mission for them. That tolerance, of course, does not excuse us from pursuing our own vision of the mission Christ has for us.
Since Christ is not here telling us who is right and who is wrong, we must make those decisions on our own, as did our predecessors, and we must face some probability of human error. However, John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted to Catholicism, said, in effect, authority is what separates the Roman Catholic Church from all others.

Your post is internally contradictory.

 

[ee01165]

Your post is internally contradictory.

I doubt it, but I would be interested in your explanation.

 

[tellmemo]

I know this seems like such an obvious question, but after thinking about it…I am really not entirely sure. If “the Church” involves only those bishops and parishes in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean the Eastern Orthodox churches are not in “the Church” even though they can actually trace their bishops back to apostles? What about Anglo-Catholics who have recovered apostolic succession and can trace their Holy Orders back to Augustine and St. Peter?

I can understand, not necessarily agree, with the argument that “the Church” must involve bishops in apostolic succession, but what about the valid bishops who are not in communion with Rome?

you might find this interesting–

When did the “Church” REALLY Begin?

youtu.be/hjd_83IYAHA

Does “Church” really mean “Church?”

youtu.be/jm9mNC_xb-w

youtu.be/hjd_83IYAHA

 

[davidv]

I know this seems like such an obvious question, but after thinking about it…I am really not entirely sure. If “the Church” involves only those bishops and parishes in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, does that mean the Eastern Orthodox churches are not in “the Church” even though they can actually trace their bishops back to apostles?

Like our protestant brethren, they are "imperfectly joined to the Church.

What about Anglo-Catholics who have recovered apostolic succession and can trace their Holy Orders back to Augustine and St. Peter?

I beleive that their relationship would be called schismatic.

I can understand, not necessarily agree, with the argument that “the Church” must involve bishops in apostolic succession, but what about the valid bishops who are not in communion with Rome?

Their relationship would by called schismatic.

*schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

 

[jinc1019]

According to St. Ignatius of Antioch, the Church is where the bishop is, and the people are gathered around him, and Christ is present among them (in the Eucharist).

All bishops? Just bishops who are considered to maintain the orthodox Christian faith?

 

[jinc1019]

The Church is the Catholic Church, also called the Roman Catholic Church though this term is sometimes also used more narrowly to refer to the Latin Church specifically. Someone is therefore “in” or “part of” this Church to the degree to which they are “in” or “part of” the Catholic Church, as they are the same thing or, to phrase it differently, as the Church founded by Jesus Christ subsists fully and completely in the Catholic Church.

This incorporation into the Catholic Church can be viewed from many different angles, like those of faith, grace, community, bishops, baptism, the Eucharist. If the subject could be reduced or summarized to one thing perhaps we could make it the transformative encounter of man with God, through Jesus Christ and in the Holy Spirit.

So are Orthodox Christians not in “the Church”? It seems that way from your response but I admit it’s hard to tell.

 

[jinc1019]

I am a practicing Catholic and in my mind, the Church is nothing more and nothing less than a vehicle provided to us to practice our following of Christ. In the final analysis, we are bound by the conscience within us that hopefully is informed and guides us in our practice to follow Christ. If we believe that the Catholic Church is Christ’s representative on this earth, no matter how many human errors exist either inside or outside of the Church, and no matter how many plausible alternatives may surround us, we are bound to our practice of transubstantiation and communion.
I offer two other points. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the great doctor of the Church, says that even an erring conscience must be followed and that is why we must be tolerant of others. We must assume they are following the conscience within them that is guiding them in their pursuit of Christ’s mission for them. That tolerance, of course, does not excuse us from pursuing our own vision of the mission Christ has for us.
Since Christ is not here telling us who is right and who is wrong, we must make those decisions on our own, as did our predecessors, and we must face some probability of human error. However, John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted to Catholicism, said, in effect, authority is what separates the Roman Catholic Church from all others.

So then are you saying the Church does not include validly ordained bishops from other churches, like Eastern Orthodox?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

So are Orthodox Christians not in “the Church”? It seems that way from your response but I admit it’s hard to tell.

Not fully. You could say they and all baptized non-Catholic have one foot in the Church and one foot outside. Although even that is a simplification. The Orthodox, for example, have valid sacraments including valid ordination to the episcopacy and valid Eucharist, and also they have a very large proportion of the revealed truths of the Faith. All this makes their union with the Church much stronger than that of most Protestants for instance, but there is still an element of separation as well inasmuch as they hold themselves back from full communion with the bishop of Rome and those in communion with him, and also refrain from assenting to certain Church teachings.

 

[jinc1019]

Like our protestant brethren, they are "imperfectly joined to the Church.

I beleive that their relationship would be called schismatic.

Their relationship would by called schismatic.

David,
I think you are missing the topic entirely. I know the Catholic Church thinks they are schismatic, that’s not the issue. The issue is, is “the Church” really ONLY those bishops in communion with the pope in Rome? You are apparently arguing that is the case. I would like to know why you think that and how you see relations then between Rome and the Orthodox Church or other breakaway bishops. Are you saying validly ordained bishops are not actually in “the Church”? It seems to me then that the consensus amongst many posters is that “in the Church” means communion with Rome is required…but so far, no reasons have been given for this view except that the pope says so.

 

[jinc1019]

Not fully. You could say they and all baptized non-Catholic have one foot in the Church and one foot outside. Although even that is a simplification. The Orthodox, for example, have valid sacraments including valid ordination to the episcopacy and valid Eucharist, and also they have a very large proportion of the revealed truths of the Faith. All this makes their union with the Church much stronger than that of most Protestants for instance, but there is still an element of separation as well inasmuch as they hold themselves back from full communion with the bishop of Rome and those in communion with him, and also refrain from assenting to certain Church teachings.

Certainly a fair opinion…but what is based on? Why do you believe communion with Rome is necessary?

 

[davidv]

David,
I think you are missing the topic entirely. I know the Catholic Church thinks they are schismatic, that’s not the issue. The issue is, is “the Church” really ONLY those bishops in communion with the pope in Rome? You are apparently arguing that is the case. I would like to know why you think that and how you see relations then between Rome and the Orthodox Church or other breakaway bishops. Are you saying validly ordained bishops are not actually in “the Church”? It seems to me then that the consensus amongst many posters is that “in the Church” means communion with Rome is required…but so far, no reasons have been given for this view except that the pope says so.

If you think all that has been said so far amounts to, the pope says so, I don’t have anything more to add.

 

[ee01165]

So then are you saying the Church does not include validly ordained bishops from other churches, like Eastern Orthodox?

I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying that the Conference of Catholic Bishops or whoever is the determining body when it comes to whether the church should be inclusive or exclusive are bound by the same considerations we are; i.e., what is Christ’s intention?
In the final analysis, when the Church passes judgment in such matters; i.e., including bishops from Eastern Orthodox or other non-Rome based Christian sects, they are trying to determine if the inclusion would be a Christ like decision. Since the decision is not an Ex-Cathedra decision, they can be right and they can be wrong. We can accept it or not.

 

[jinc1019]

If you think all that has been said so far amounts to, the pope says so, I don’t have anything more to add.

I am not saying that is all that it amounts to, I am saying that is the only reason given thus far. You likely have many reasons why you believe that, which is why I asked what they are. But so far, yes, I believe that is the only real reason you gave for why the proper definition of “the Church” includes bishops in communion with Rome exclusively. Perhaps I missed something but I don’t see it…

 

[jinc1019]

I am absolutely not saying that. I am saying that the Conference of Catholic Bishops or whoever is the determining body when it comes to whether the church should be inclusive or exclusive are bound by the same considerations we are; i.e., what is Christ’s intention?
In the final analysis, when the Church passes judgment in such matters; i.e., including bishops from Eastern Orthodox or other non-Rome based Christian sects, they are trying to determine if the inclusion would be a Christ like decision. Since the decision is not an Ex-Cathedra decision, they can be right and they can be wrong. We can accept it or not.

I am not sure I agree with your understanding of the issue but I do understand what you are saying and I appreciate the response and the explanation!

The reason I say that is because, according to Catholic teachings, the bishops, when acting together, are protected by the Holy Spirit from erring. The idea that “they can be right and they can be wrong” violates Catholic teaching…However, I agree with you. Of course, I would argue the pope can be wrong as well, even speaking ex cathedra, but that is a completely separate issue.

 

[jinc1019]

I am still not sure I understand what “the Church” is…is it only those bishops in communion with the pope or not? If it is, then what about bishops who have valid orders?