Grace & Peace!
Rinnie, thanks for your response. It is indeed helpful, at least in part.
I would challenge you, however, to be more consistent and more purposeful in your use of language. I make this challenge not because I’m a stellar example of consistency and purpose myself, but because I noticed some inconsistencies in the expression of your thoughts which makes coming away from your posts with a clear statement a bit difficult. For instance, you write:
1:
rinnie:
You also write:
2:
rinnie:
If the Pope is not the Church we are not either.
Later you write:
3:
rinnie:
Now how we become part of Christ. Simple through his Church.
And:
4:
rinnie:
As the Church makes its pilgrim way it will always face persecution. In one form or another there will alway be attacks on the Church just like there were on Christ. His NEW BODY the CHURCH made up of members united in him as head will endure persecution, suffering, treachery and abandonment.
(Before we go further, you may have noticed, I am a great fan of those old images of the Church as Church Triumphant [in Heaven], Church Militant [on Earth], Church Suffering [in Purgatory]. I think they’re very useful distinctions.)
Your first statement is, of course, correct–in a very
real way, the Church is in fact Christ–and this represents, to me, an articulation of the reality of union that the Church Triumphant is experiencing and which the Church Militant and Suffering are being prepared to experience. That is, what the Churches Triumphant, Militant, and Suffering share is
divinizing relationship with Christ. The difference between the three has to do with the degree of the perfection of that relationship. But all three are the Church.
Your second statement, however, is problematic to me because it denies that anyone can participate in the Church Militant or Suffering, suggesting that being the Church is
not in fact about being in
relationship with Christ, but that the Church is something more along the lines of being a separate hypostasis of Christ which mediates Christ to us through (for instance) a body of teaching. To me, defining the Church this way means that we cannot ever hope to participate in it, because, as you have made clear in statement 1 and 2, we do not share in it. (I would argue, by the way, that pursuing this separation of the Head from the Body represents an expedition into the land of heresy.)
Your third statement, however, suggests that we
can be part of the Body of Christ–which is to say, that we
can in fact participate in the reality of Christ and actually
be Christ’s healing hands on earth–that we can, in fact
be Church together with Christ. This is in direct contradiction to your second statement.
Your fourth statement further suggests that people can be the Church–in what way can Christ be said to be on a pilgrim way
unless he journeys with us as we participate in his body and he in us? You go on to even say that people can be members of the Church. This, too, is in contradistinction to your second point. Unless, to you, membership in the Church is more along the lines of a forensic concept of membership, not an
actual participation in an
actual relationship with a
real Christ.
Because your third and fourth points do not exactly jibe with your second, which flows from your first, your first comes across as a denial that anyone can participate in the Church.
Or, it comes across as a statement that only those who are perfect (and therefore, in perfect union with Christ) can be called members of the Church. Which is, in many ways, to call into question the efficacy of the sacrament of baptism–if there is no assurance of participation in the Body of Christ by baptism, no indication of adoption into the Family of God, what good is baptism supposed to accomplish?
And how would you reconcile what you are saying here with section 791 of the Roman Catechism:
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]
This section takes for granted our participation in the Church, that
we, with Christ, are Church together. Section 795 is very clear: “Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ” (Christus totus).” Note the use of the conjunction
and. Christ
and his Church. Using the logic you have thus far presented, the Catechism could just as easily say, “Christ and Christ make up Christ.” Which, I think you will agree, is a bit absurd and
does not say the same thing as “Christ and his Church thus together make up the “whole Christ”.”
(CONTINUED…)
