What is the difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy?

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Pope of Rome is not immune to pride either. He is a man, too.

Amen, and Amen; So let it be known that this Catholic will follow Jesus and obey his words before any man’s opinions or objections to Truth.

Here is Jesus speaking " 17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus does not lie, but man and the deciever can, no man, no matter how late in the game can put asunder what God has joined together. IF one attempts to do this isolates himself.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Gabriel… really???

So you’re joining the Eastern Orthodox Church then?

(Or should I say returning to the Truth?)**

:clapping::extrahappy:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Andrew Phillip;6190078]**Gabriel… really???

So you’re joining the Eastern Orthodox Church then?

(Or should I say returning to the Truth?)**

:clapping::extrahappy:

Who am I to return to or go from, when it is no longer I who live but Jesus Christ who lives in me. No one can say here is the Kingdom of God, or their is the Kingdom of God, for God does not desire this. It pleases God to Worship him in Spirit and Truth. Faith built upon Rock cannot be moved. My faith is built upon Rock, which neither man nor power or principality, not even death can separate me from my “Abba” Father.

IF you will excuse me, I have the priveledge and honor of leading a Rosary for one of our deaceased Parishioner with family friends. I will keep you all in prayer. Peace be with you

 

[CMatt25]

Well, I can tell you that I have read many of the early Church Fathers and can assure you there are quotes supporting both Catholic and Orthodox positions. As a well-informed, devout, and practicing Catholic, one thing that puzzles me about the dogma of Papal Infallibility is, why did the Church had to wait until 1870 to define this dogma? If it was obvious that the Bishop of Rome enjoyed infallibility as successor of St. Peter since the early centuries of the Church, then why define it in the XIX century? And if it was obvious that the Pope enjoyed infallibility, why was this not expressed clearly on any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils? It seems to me that if all of the Church knew this from the beginning of Christianity, then the Great Schism never would’ve happened. To think that there’s no evidence to support either position (Catholic or Orthodox) is to say that one of the Churches is being ignorant or dishonest and I don’t believe that to be the case. Could it be that the differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, while evident, cannot be easily clarified by looking at isolated verses in Scripture or quotes of the Church Fathers?

Ad Gentes, thanks so much for your post as I have similar questions. But do you mind me asking how you stay such a devout Catholic with these questions?

 

[crazzeto]

Something to keep in mind is that while there is one Nicene-Constantinople Creed, it is in Greek (original) but also in Latin.

To add “and the Son” to the Greek version would render a heretical statement. To my understanding, however, the same is not necessarily the case when “and the Son” is added in Latin to the Latin Creed, since the verb used for “proceeds” has different significations. The Greek version of John uses the same verb as found in the Greek version of the Creed, so it would seem that the Latin version of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, even without the filioque, means something different by “proceeds” than what the Greeks meant in the Greek version and found in the original Greek Scripture. Unless, of course, the Latins took a Latin word and gave it specific meaning to accord with the meaning of the Greek Creed and the koine Greek Scripture.
.

Sorry, I snipped your white space…

Anyway, I think what you’re starting to touch on here is the problem inherant with the original creed as it was. The contravercy surrounded the usage of homoousios, which would have seemed to support the already rejected heresy of modalism, that is that The Father is the Son, is the Holy Spirit etc… Because of this a lot of Christians took the position “well hey wait a minute, you just tried to reject “homoousios” about 5 minutes ago and now you’re trying to say that was right all along? I don’t know about that, maybe Arias has something after all!”. Thus, Arianism continued to grow and spread across the Empire and something needed to be done about it.

In Spain, “and the Son” was added to the Creed to clairfy it for the Christians there. The Trinity is made up of 3 distinct persons, who all share one single nature.

Now, with regard to the claims that it is heretical to state that the Spirit proceeds form the son:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=15&l=26&f=s#x

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.

Just like the Father, the Son also is going to send the spirit. Thus, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and The Son.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Ad Gentes, thanks so much for your post as I have similar questions. But do you mind me asking how you stay such a devout Catholic with these questions?

CMatt25, to be perfectly honest with you, I am currently struggling with these questions.

At one point I believed everything that the Church taught without questioning anything. If I didn’t understand a dogma or teaching, I would just humbly submit to the authority of the Church. Back then, I firmly believed that the Catholic Church was the only Church founded by Christ. As I learned more about Church history and Orthodoxy, I came to the conclusion that while the Catholic Church was the Church founded by Christ, so was the Eastern Orthodox Church. I believed that we were two halves of the true Church of Jesus Christ. Now, I can’t help but wonder about the possibility that the Catholic Church could be wrong about certain things. The Church says that teachings don’t change. But when we look at history and many of the documents of the Church (not just recent ones), that just doesn’t seem to be the case. That being said, I am still Catholic and recognize the possibility that I may be wrong. For that reason, while I continue to study and pray searching for the truth, I also continue to submit myself to the authority of the Church and fulfill all my obligations as a Catholic. I am very active within my parish community and I wouldn’t dare to cause one of my brothers or sisters to question their faith since I, myself, don’t know all the answers. When I teach RCIA, for example, I only teach what the Church teaches with appropriate supporting documentation (e.g. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Papal Encyclicals, etc.) and leave any personal opinions out of it. After all, if I can’t be faithful to the Church, then I shouldn’t be teaching in the Church’s name.

As a side note, the only reason I stated in Post #73 that I was “a well-informed, devout, and practicing Catholic” was because the first assumption among many of my Catholic brethren when questioning anything about the Church is that one is not educated enough about the faith or one is not a “good” or “practicing” Catholic. I wanted to make a point that that wasn’t the case with me.

 

[crazzeto]

Ad Gentes, which (dogmatic) positions do you assert the Church made changes on? I do realize there have been many changes over the years with regards to certain teachings, i.e. rules for fasting, when to fast… But these teachings have also never been dogmatic, thus are naturally subject to change.

 

[crazzeto]

Well, I can tell you that I have read many of the early Church Fathers and can assure you there are quotes supporting both Catholic and Orthodox positions. As a well-informed, devout, and practicing Catholic, one thing that puzzles me about the dogma of Papal Infallibility is, why did the Church had to wait until 1870 to define this dogma? If it was obvious that the Bishop of Rome enjoyed infallibility as successor of St. Peter since the early centuries of the Church, then why define it in the XIX century? And if it was obvious that the Pope enjoyed infallibility, why was this not expressed clearly on any of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils? It seems to me that if all of the Church knew this from the beginning of Christianity, then the Great Schism never would’ve happened. To think that there’s no evidence to support either position (Catholic or Orthodox) is to say that one of the Churches is being ignorant or dishonest and I don’t believe that to be the case. Could it be that the differences between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, while evident, cannot be easily clarified by looking at isolated verses in Scripture or quotes of the Church Fathers?

Teachings are typically made Dogmatic when they come under serious enough attack, and only when the teaching it’s self is considered important enough that it should be dogmatic.

Take Infallibility, if you read the history on this matter you’ll see that this teaching isn’t something that just popped up out of no where in 1870. This is something which has been accepted dating back to the early fathers. In fact, if you really dig into the issue, you’ll see that it typically isn’t questioned ever, until all of the sudden there is some serious political motivation to do so i.e. in 1054, which incidently is the same exact point at which the Filioque all of the sudden becomes a gigantic issue after centuries of usage, not to mention the usage of unlevened bread in the Latin rite (for which there is very good historical support for).

My major issue with the Eastern arguments is that (for obvious reasons) the Orthodox will make these issue out to have been long standing devisive issues when that just isn’t the case when you dig into it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Tisk, tisk, tisk, I can see now why some Protestants have a flavor for “Orthodoxy” who continue to rebel against God given authority over his Catholic Church in Peter and his successors in the Popes. Pride the first sin continues in men. Pride will always be the factor of schism.

Interesting history but they can better serve this topic, without the personal opinions and to try and distort History to only one personal view.

In summary “Pride of men” remains the schism and difference between Peter’s Chair resided in the Pope and Orthodoxy not in communion with Peter’s Chair. There is never Two Catholic Church’s, for there remains only One body, One Lord, One faith, One baptism in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Peace be with you all

You speak of our pride and then insist we submit to a Monarchy which has no precedent? That is pride

 

[Nine_Two]

Sorry, I snipped your white space…

Anyway, I think what you’re starting to touch on here is the problem inherant with the original creed as it was. The contravercy surrounded the usage of homoousios, which would have seemed to support the already rejected heresy of modalism, that is that The Father is the Son, is the Holy Spirit etc… Because of this a lot of Christians took the position “well hey wait a minute, you just tried to reject “homoousios” about 5 minutes ago and now you’re trying to say that was right all along? I don’t know about that, maybe Arias has something after all!”. Thus, Arianism continued to grow and spread across the Empire and something needed to be done about it.

In Spain, “and the Son” was added to the Creed to clairfy it for the Christians there. The Trinity is made up of 3 distinct persons, who all share one single nature.

Now, with regard to the claims that it is heretical to state that the Spirit proceeds form the son:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=15&l=26&f=s#x

Just like the Father, the Son also is going to send the spirit. Thus, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and The Son.

The problem with that logic is that firt off the filioque is nowhere near the word “homoousios”, and second “and the son” confuses the the two, it doesn’t draw a further line between them.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I know one part of it is the primacy of Peter. The other is something to do with the Holy Spirit. Whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son. I must confess, (and I plan on reading the posts of the knowledgeable here), the Holy Spirit problem is hard for me to grasp. I’m working on it. I’d like to at least understand why the EO keep themselves apart from Rome. Not that I can do anything about it, but pray that we can mend, and be one church as Jesus ordained. I have faith. I read the end of the book. It will be in the fullness of time. Not worried. Just puzzled sometimes over how we’ll be getting there. I’m already 52, so I most likely won’t get to see it.

For what it’s worth, as a simple lay Catholic man, and lover of my Lord Jesus Christ, I am filled with love for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, and want us all to experience His fullness together.

 

[Madaglan]

Sorry, I snipped your white space…

Anyway, I think what you’re starting to touch on here is the problem inherant with the original creed as it was. The contravercy surrounded the usage of homoousios, which would have seemed to support the already rejected heresy of modalism, that is that The Father is the Son, is the Holy Spirit etc… Because of this a lot of Christians took the position “well hey wait a minute, you just tried to reject “homoousios” about 5 minutes ago and now you’re trying to say that was right all along? I don’t know about that, maybe Arias has something after all!”. Thus, Arianism continued to grow and spread across the Empire and something needed to be done about it.

In Spain, “and the Son” was added to the Creed to clairfy it for the Christians there. The Trinity is made up of 3 distinct persons, who all share one single nature.

Now, with regard to the claims that it is heretical to state that the Spirit proceeds form the son:

drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=15&l=26&f=s#x

Just like the Father, the Son also is going to send the spirit. Thus, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and The Son.

The Church adopted the term homoousios (not found in Scripture) and included it in the Nicene Creed. Like all theological terms, the Church gave it a certain meaning. The filioque was added by a local church, and only later did Rome accept the addition into the Creed. The addition qualifies the meaning of “proceeds from,” which is directly from Scripture in relation to the Holy Spirit’s procession from the Father.

The Greek word translated into English as “proceeds from,” ἐκπορευόμενον (ekporeuomenon), is the word used in the Greek version of John as well as the Nicene-Constantinople Creed. When applied to the Father, the word signifies that the Father is the sole source of the Holy Spirit. As another poster on this thread has noted, it is for this reason that Latin Catholics who conduct the Mass in Greek do **not add a Greek equivalent of the Latin filioque, for to do so would result in a heretical statement. From what I have read and heard, there is another Greek word, proienai, that comes closer in meaning to the Latin procedit that was used as the translation for the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and which was used in the Vulgate (and possibly earlier Latin versions of John).

A problem I see is that, if procedit does not mean the same thing as ekporeuomenon, and the two cannot be used interchangeably in relation to procession from the Son, then it raises the question as to whether the Latin Creed is in fact saying the same thing as the Greek Creed, and if the Latin Vulgate conveys the meaning of the Greek original in this particular case of procession. Now, I know that St. Augustine speaks very highly of the Septuagint as the Church’s authoritative version, and that Greek had not vanished from the West by this time. So, what I wonder is that, if in using the word procedit in both the Creed and in their Latin versions of John, they intended this word to mean exactly the same as ekporeuomenon found in the original of John and added into the Creed.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

Ad Gentes, which (dogmatic) positions do you assert the Church made changes on? I do realize there have been many changes over the years with regards to certain teachings, i.e. rules for fasting, when to fast… But these teachings have also never been dogmatic, thus are naturally subject to change.

First of all, I didn’t use the word “dogmatic” on my previous post. What I said was this:

The Church says that teachings don’t change. But when we look at history and many of the documents of the Church (not just recent ones), that just doesn’t seem to be the case.

Now, while I have study theology and Church history, I am not a theologian. I will, however, attempt to answer your question through some examples, recognizing that you will most likely have an explanation or different understanding on the issues since these are not always straight forward. That is why Catholics and Orthodox cannot agree on many of these issues. To say otherwise is to say that one of the Churches is being dishonest in their believes, which I am certain is not the case.

Let’s see…there are many to pick from, but let’s start with these two:

Previous Teaching:
The Church of Christ is the Catholic Church

“[T]he Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing (emphasis added).” Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis 27

“We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe that there is only one holy Catholic Church, and** that one is apostolic **(emphasis added).” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302)

Current Teaching and/or New Clarification:
The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church

“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church… (emphasis added)” Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 8

Previous Teaching:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus - Outside the Church there is no salvation

“…and I profess that outside the Catholic Church **no one is saved **(emphasis added).” Pope Sylvester II, Profession of Faith (991)

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which **no one at all is saved **(emphasis added).” Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

“Outside this [Catholic] Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins… (emphasis added)” Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the 'eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matthew 25:41)… (emphasis added)” Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441)

Current Teaching and/or New Clarification:
Salvation is possible outside the Church

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans [Muslims], who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God…" Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16

“Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His [Catholic] Church, yet sincerely seek God and move by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.” Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16

By the way, I have read the explanations given by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many, however, including Catholics (mostly traditionalists) would disagree with some of these explanations.

 

[Madaglan]

Teachings are typically made Dogmatic when they come under serious enough attack, and only when the teaching it’s self is considered important enough that it should be dogmatic.

Take Infallibility, if you read the history on this matter you’ll see that this teaching isn’t something that just popped up out of no where in 1870. This is something which has been accepted dating back to the early fathers. In fact, if you really dig into the issue, you’ll see that it typically isn’t questioned ever, until all of the sudden there is some serious political motivation to do so i.e. in 1054, which incidently is the same exact point at which the Filioque all of the sudden becomes a gigantic issue after centuries of usage, not to mention the usage of unlevened bread in the Latin rite (for which there is very good historical support for).

My major issue with the Eastern arguments is that (for obvious reasons) the Orthodox will make these issue out to have been long standing devisive issues when that just isn’t the case when you dig into it.

Hi crazzeto,

As I understand the matter, the point of contention between the Pope of Rome and the East was over the claim of universal jurisdiction–of Papal supremacy over all the churches. Papal infallibility is a developed understanding over time of the Roman Catholic beliefs concerning Papal Primacy and supremacy, and of Rome’s claim to being a standard of orthodoxy.

 

[CMatt25]

Ad Gentes, thank you for your heartfelt response. Peace and God bless.

 

[dzheremi]

After a wonderful day spent at Mt. Angel Abbey in St. Benedict, Oregon, my priest and I stopped at a local restaurant to have some lunch. Over the course of the conversation, I brought up the trouble I have in understanding the Filioque. As I remember it, it went something like this:

Me: Doesn’t it insist on double procession? “From the Father AND the Son”, right? Two sources of the Holy Spirit?

Father: No, no.

Me: Well then why do some people say it does?

Father: Because they want it to! But that’s not what it means. It should be understood as THROUGH the Son. It was inserted to fight Arianism in Spain, not to suggest that the Holy Spirit’s origin is anything other than the Father.

Me: Well then why doesn’t it say “through”? Why does it say “and”? Because that is really confusing. When does “and” ever mean “through”?

Father: Well, it is a translation from the Latin…

I dropped the issue at this point, so I can’t remember if there was more to the conversation. I don’t know Latin, but that strikes me as a non-explanation. I’m fairly certain that Latin must have preposition corresponding to “through”, so if that is what is meant, that’s what should be there. And even if it is a translation issue from Latin to English, there is absolutely no reason why we should be faithful to the original if it does not even express what we mean in English. Theological orthodoxy should trump literalism in translation. And, um…it is recognized as an addition to the Creed by the churches that use it, so it is not as though we’d be doing anything other than restoring the original creed that western Christianity affirmed for hundreds of years if we were to get rid of it. It would be a positive step to repudiate any teaching of double procession and all the trappings that make it look as though that is an acceptable position (assuming my priest was telling the truth that that is not what we believe in the first place). We are never, ever, ever going to be able to talk about unity if we do not share the same understanding of the issues that divide us. If “and the Son” is heretical, take it out! Don’t teach it. Of course, that really messes up any claims of infallibility, so maybe a serious examination of that would come next as a consequence…

 

[Harpazo]

After a wonderful day spent at Mt. Angel Abbey in St. Benedict, Oregon, my priest and I stopped at a local restaurant to have some lunch. Over the course of the conversation, I brought up the trouble I have in understanding the Filioque. As I remember it, it went something like this:

Me: Doesn’t it insist on double procession? “From the Father AND the Son”, right? Two sources of the Holy Spirit?

Father: No, no.

Me: Well then why do some people say it does?

Father: Because they want it to! But that’s not what it means. It should be understood as THROUGH the Son. It was inserted to fight Arianism in Spain, not to suggest that the Holy Spirit’s origin is anything other than the Father.

Me: Well then why doesn’t it say “through”? Why does it say “and”? Because that is really confusing. When does “and” ever mean “through”?

Father: Well, it is a translation from the Latin…

I dropped the issue at this point, so I can’t remember if there was more to the conversation. I don’t know Latin, but that strikes me as a non-explanation. I’m fairly certain that Latin must have preposition corresponding to “through”, so if that is what is meant, that’s what should be there. And even if it is a translation issue from Latin to English, there is absolutely no reason why we should be faithful to the original if it does not even express what we mean in English. Theological orthodoxy should trump literalism in translation. And, um…it is recognized as an addition to the Creed by the churches that use it, so it is not as though we’d be doing anything other than restoring the original creed that western Christianity affirmed for hundreds of years if we were to get rid of it. It would be a positive step to repudiate any teaching of double procession and all the trappings that make it look as though that is an acceptable position (assuming my priest was telling the truth that that is not what we believe in the first place). We are never, ever, ever going to be able to talk about unity if we do not share the same understanding of the issues that divide us. If “and the Son” is heretical, take it out! Don’t teach it. Of course, that really messes up any claims of infallibility, so maybe a serious examination of that would come next as a consequence…

Latin does have a preposition for “through” it is per. If the Latins wanted it to mean “through the son” they should have said et per filium, but they did not, which is very telling to me.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, and not just you…

 

[crazzeto]

Hi crazzeto,

As I understand the matter, the point of contention between the Pope of Rome and the East was over the claim of universal jurisdiction–of Papal supremacy over all the churches. Papal infallibility is a developed understanding over time of the Roman Catholic beliefs concerning Papal Primacy and supremacy, and of Rome’s claim to being a standard of orthodoxy.

you’re spot on, this is the point of contention… Particularly since the western church would arguy that it’s not a “developed understanding over time”.

 

[crazzeto]

First of all, I didn’t use the word “dogmatic” on my previous post. What I said was this:

Now, while I have study theology and Church history, I am not a theologian. I will, however, attempt to answer your question through some examples, recognizing that you will most likely have an explanation or different understanding on the issues since these are not always straight forward. That is why Catholics and Orthodox cannot agree on many of these issues. To say otherwise is to say that one of the Churches is being dishonest in their believes, which I am certain is not the case.

Let’s see…there are many to pick from, but let’s start with these two:

By the way, I have read the explanations given by the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Many, however, including Catholics (mostly traditionalists) would disagree with some of these explanations.

Regarding the mystical body of Christ, at least upon my reading the teaching actually doesn’t look changed. The wording most certainly is changed, I agree with that, but at least what I’m getting out of Lumen Gentium 8 (currently have it on my 2nd screen) is that the church, in fact is the mysical body of christ exactly as previously stated. It’s just more wordy.

1. 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 (9*) through which He communicated truth and grace to all. But, the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, are not to be considered as two realities, nor are the visible assembly and the spiritual community, nor the earthly Church and the Church enriched with heavenly things; rather they form one complex reality which coalesces from a divine and a human element.(10*) For this reason, by no weak analogy, it is compared to the mystery of the incarnate Word. As the assumed nature inseparably united to Him, serves the divine Word as a living organ of salvation, so, in a similar way, does the visible social structure of the Church serve the Spirit of Christ, who vivifies it, in the building up of the body.(73) (11*)

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

Just as Christ carried out the work of redemption in poverty and persecution, so the Church is called to follow the same route that it might communicate the fruits of salvation to men. Christ Jesus, “though He was by nature God . . . emptied Himself, taking the nature of a slave”,(77) and “being rich, became poor”(78) for our sakes. Thus, the Church, although it needs human resources to carry out its mission, is not set up to seek earthly glory, but to proclaim, even by its own example, humility and selfsacrifice. Christ was sent by the Father “to bring good news to the poor, to heal the contrite of heart”,(79) “to seek and to save what was lost”.(80) Similarly, the Church encompasses with love all who are afflicted with human suffering and in the poor and afflicted sees the image of its poor and suffering Founder. It does all it can to relieve their need and in them it strives to serve Christ. While Christ, holy, innocent and undefiled(81) knew nothing of sin,(82) but came to expiate only the sins of the people,(83) the Church, embracing in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal. The Church, “like a stranger in a foreign land, presses forward amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God”(14*), announcing the cross and death of the Lord until He comes."(84) By the power of the risen Lord it is given strength that it might, in patience and in love, overcome its sorrows and its challenges, both within itself and from without, and that it might reveal to the world, faithfully though darkly, the mystery of its Lord until, in the end, it will be manifested in full light.

I’m at the office so I really can’t address all points right now… I’ll go back and reread your points though.