Who is a Catholic - is this chart right?

[catholic1seeks]

Some people seem to be clinging to the definition of “Church” as the visible reality only, ie., sacramental communion (the Eucharist) and jurisdiction under bishops in union with the Pope. That is fine, but you cannot limit the “Church” to just these realities, for then you have problems with precisely what has already been mentioned:

1. Baptized Christians are members of Christ.
2. There is only one Body of Christ (only one Church).

So clearly, baptized Christians outside the visible elements of the Catholic Church (Eucharist, jurisdiction of bishops, communion with Pope) are yet still members of the One Church. It simply follows from #1 and #2.

 

[Genesis315]

There’s another option: D) the separated brethren are not members of the Church, nor can they or their communities be said to be the Church, but they do have a true bond with the Church based on their Baptism (which begins incorporation, but doesn’t complete it) which relationship we call “partial communion.”

The key is this doctrine about the Church. From Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium (my emphasis):

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.

Unlike Protestants, we don’t believe in an invisible Church. What visibly delineates this entity from other communities and societies? Again, from Lumen Gentium:

The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.

Given this visible nature of the Church, “membership” is a strictly defined concept:

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Baptism begins the incorporation into Christ and the Church, creates an indestructible bond with the Church, and was instituted to lead one to full membership, but alone it does not make one a member. From the Vatican II decree on ecumenism:

Baptism therefore establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism, therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith, complete incorporation in the system of salvation such as Christ willed it to be, and finally complete ingrafting in eucharistic communion.

Because of the sins of men, Baptism is now administered apart from and without its intended completion and it and other elements properly belonging to the Church are found in communities other than the Catholic Church. Incorporation is begun, but not finished. We can even say that in these elements–in the sacraments in particular–the Church is present to and even operative for these other communities. But we can’t identify these persons and communities as the Church until they are fully incorporated without undermining the permanent identity, unity, and unicity, of the Church as Christ instituted her and the Holy Spirit sustains her as a visible society on earth.

 

[catholic1seeks]

This doesn’t amount to a fourth option, but just a different way of saying the third option [ C ].

Protestants are not fully in the Catholic Church.

But their baptisms make them members of the Body of Christ, even if its only a first step or “beginning,” as you say.

We as Catholics don’t believe in a mere invisible church, true. But there is only ONE Church, so if we admit Baptism initiates one into the Church, then it follows that non-Catholics and Protestants are part of the Church (even if imperfect).

 

[Genesis315]

But their baptisms make them members of the Body of Christ, even if its only a first step or “beginning,” as you say.

I think the reason we may be talking past each other is you are using “member” in a broader way than the Church does. At Vatican II, the Church was very careful not to use the word “member” to refer to non-Catholics. Instead we see talk of various relationships with the Church such as communion, being united with Christ, and incomplete incorporation and this precisely because the Church’s specific definition as to membership linked to the visible identity of the Church, which cannot be identified with non-Catholic communities.

(note, the English translation of Unitatis Redintigratio on the web has a bad translation that calls them “members,” but this is not the case in the original Latin or other languages–at least those I can recognize–and is translated more faithfully in English in the quote of the same passage in CCC 818).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Is a baptized Christian a member of the Body of Christ?

And is the Church the Body of Christ?

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.” Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”

The Catechism is talking about Baptism as a sacrament. Not Catholic Baptism. But Baptism that many non-Catholic Protestants have as well.

 

[Benadam]

The people on the outside of the ring would be those who follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit snd would accept the Gospel if properly exposed to it or are in the process.

 

[Genesis315]

Yes to the second question, not necessarily to the first–or at least not permanently. From Vatican II’s Decree on the Eastern Churches:

1. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites.

Note, the identity of the Church, the Body of Christ, and the Church’s definition of membership (as quoted earlier in Mysitici corporis) are all equated. The Body of Christ is not larger than the Catholic Church, and it doesn’t include those outside the same faith and government.

As I quoted earlier, Baptism presumes the “follow through” of full incorporation into Christ. It indeed makes us members, but the wounds to unity separate one from the unity of the Body defined as membership (although not completely). This is why, speaking of non-Catholics, the Catechism says their baptism only effects an “imperfect” communion (CCC 1271). Even if in good faith, that visible separation makes one no longer a member, but that partial bond remains.

From Ott’s Fundamentals’s of Catholic Dogma (note, it is using older terminology so in this case “public heretics” would include material, not just formal heretics):

Although public apostates and heretics, schismatics and excommunicati vitandi are outside the legal organisation of the Church, still their relationship to the Church is essentially different from that of the unbaptised. As the baptismal character which effects incorporation in the Church is indestructible, the baptised person, in spite of his ceasing to be a member of the Church, cannot cut himself off so completely from the Church, that every bond with the Church is dissolved.

Since the Church is to be identified with the Body of Christ, we can exchange the two terms in the above the meaning remains intact.

 

[catholic1seeks]

As I quoted earlier, Baptism presumes the “follow through” of full incorporation into Christ. It indeed makes us members, but the wounds to unity separate one from the unity of the Body defined as membership (although not completely). This is why, speaking of non-Catholics, the Catechism says their baptism only effects an “imperfect” communion (CCC 1271). Even if in good faith, that visible separation makes one no longer a member, but that partial bond remains.

From Ott’s Fundamentals’s of Catholic Dogma (note, it is using older terminology so in this case “public heretics” would include material, not just formal heretics):

So… being a baptized Christian does not make one a member of the Church? That’s in direct contradiction to what the Catechism (not the mention the New Testament) says.

I understand there is nuance with “full communion” and partial communion and so on.

But I don’t think it makes sense to say that a Christian can be truly baptized, receive sacramental grace, and yet not a member of the Body of Christ.

 

[Dovekin]

Dominus Iesus from the CDF in 2000 put it like this:

there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

 

[convertingtocatholic]

The outer part should be baptism of desire God forgives im on the blink on the outer ring and baptism ring

 

[Dovekin]

We have already quoted the rest of Lumen Gentium 14, we may as well add the last sentences of it:

Catechumens who, moved by the Holy Spirit, seek with explicit intention to be incorporated into the Church are by that very intention joined with her. With love and solicitude Mother Church already embraces them as her own.

You already are joined to the Church!

 

[steve-b]

As I said,

The Catholic Church is that which is in the center of the circle (communities in communion with Rome as in the Roman Pontiff). Those in complete union with the pope are Catholic. All others listed, are NOT Catholic nor the Catholic Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But they are in the church, nevertheless. It just depends on what is meant by “Catholic Church.” If you define Catholic Church as communion with Rome, then obviously you get to your conclusion.

Vatican II fathers were well aware of this tension. I just read about it a few days ago in a book.

The council fathers ultimately ended up going for the phrase that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the visible Catholic Church. But there is only ONE Church, and that means all baptized Christians are part of the church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

there exists a single Church of Christ, which subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. The Churches which, while not existing in perfect communion with the Catholic Church, remain united to her by means of the closest bonds, that is, by apostolic succession and a valid Eucharist, are true particular Churches. Therefore, the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church, since they do not accept the Catholic doctrine of the Primacy, which, according to the will of God, the Bishop of Rome objectively has and exercises over the entire Church.

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery, are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.

So as the quote says, visible communion with Rome is not necessary to be considered part of the “Church of Christ”

 

[steve-b]

But they are in the church, nevertheless. It just depends on what is meant by “Catholic Church.”

If you define Catholic Church as communion with Rome, then obviously you get to your conclusion.

It’s NOT me it’s how the Church defines herself

catholic1seeks:

Vatican II fathers were well aware of this tension. I just read about it a few days ago in a book.

The council fathers ultimately ended up going for the phrase that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the visible Catholic Church. But there is only ONE Church, and that means all baptized Christians are part of the church.

Re: “subsists in”.

"As is well known this famous expression “subsistit in” was subsequently the object of many and contradictory interpretations. The notion became quite widespread that the Council had not wanted to adopt as its own the traditional statement according in which the Church of Christ is (est) the Catholic Church — as was stated in the preparatory schema2 — so as to be able to say that the Church of Christ subsists also in Christian communities separated from Rome.

In reality, however, an analysis of the Council proceedings leads to the conclusion that
“[t]he phrase subsistit in is intended not only to reconfirm the meaning of the term est, that is, the identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church. Above all, it reaffirms that the Church of Christ, imbued with the fullness of all the means instituted by Christ, perdures (continues, remains) forever in the Catholic Church”.3

This meaning of the term subsistit coincides with the common language of Western culture and is consistent with classical philosophical language from Aristotle to St. Thomas; that which exists in itself and not in something else is said to subsist.4

"Subsisting is a special case of being. It is being in the form of a subject standing on its own. This is the issue here. The Council wants to tell us that the Church of Jesus Christ as a concrete subject in the present world can be encountered in the Catholic Church. This can occur only once and the notion that subsistit could be multiplied misses precisely what was intended. With the word subsistit, the Council wanted to express the singularity and non-multiplicability of the Catholic Church".5

In this Document of the Council, the assertion of the subsistence of the Church of Christ in the Catholic Church is followed by the famous phrase about the presence of many elements of sanctification and truth, belonging to the Church, outside her visible structure."
From subsists in

 

[Dovekin]

Fr Ocariz continues in that same article to say:

Later doctrinal and magisterial developments on this topic have led to attributing the title of particular Churches, which is certainly of a theological nature, to non-Catholic communities that have preserved the episcopate and the Eucharist…

these communities, while being separated from Rome, are “true particular Churches”

recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church, portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation. One could say similarly that theirs is a “participated ecclesiality according to an imperfect and limited presence of the Church of Christ”.

The whole point of this article from the CDF is the opposite of the point you keep trying to assert. Some “communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church…are…portions of the one Church…of the one Catholic church…”

This paradoxical, and could be clarified better, as Fr Ocariz says repeatedly. But as he concludes:

Certainly, obstacles remain, but there is always room for prayer, thanksgiving, dialogue and hope in the action of the Holy Spirit.

 

[steve-b]

Fr Ocariz continues in that same article to say:

Later doctrinal and magisterial developments on this topic have led to attributing the title of particular Churches, which is certainly of a theological nature, to non-Catholic communities that have preserved the episcopate and the Eucharist.…

Did you see that

1. these are NON Catholic?
2. These are the “Orthodox”

And did you notice Dominus Jesus was also included? See #4. and how The Church’s constant missionary proclamation is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, not only de facto but also de iure (or in principle).

Dovekin:

recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church,

IOW they are NOT Catholic, and therefore, NOT “in” the Catholic Church either.

Dovekin:

have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church, portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation. One could say similarly that theirs is a “participated ecclesiality according to an imperfect and limited presence of the Church of Christ”.

If it is a particular “church”, They are talking about the “Orthodox”

Show me from scripture and tradition properly referenced, that schism is OK.

AND

By definition, in order to be in heresy one first must be baptized. All the following are baptized. What does Paul say happens to people who die in heresy?

Since this article is referring to Vat II, tucked in with ALL the ecumenical speak language, even in this primary document of Vat II, is paragraph 14 of Lumen Gentium

Dovekin:

The whole point of this article from the CDF is the opposite of the point you keep trying to assert. Some “communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church…are…portions of the one Church…of the one Catholic church…”

Seems YOU miss the point(s) being made.

Dovekin:

This paradoxical, and could be clarified better, as Fr Ocariz says repeatedly. But as he concludes:

Certainly, obstacles remain, but there is always room for prayer, thanksgiving, dialogue and hope in the action of the Holy Spirit.

As referenced, in Dominus Jesus, a big problem is, the mission of the Church is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, and where relativists take that.

I agree that prayer, far more than is going on, is required

 

[Dovekin]

As I said,

The Catholic Church is that which is in the center of the circle (communities in communion with Rome as in the Roman Pontiff). Those in complete union with the pope are Catholic. All others listed, are NOT Catholic nor the Catholic Church.

recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church , have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church , portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation. One could say similarly that theirs is a “participated ecclesiality according to an imperfect and limited presence of the Church of Christ”.

Your position from post 53 is here contrasted with a passage from Fr Ocariz. The one contradicts the other.

Fr Ocariz is attempting to deal with “an apparent paradox.” You keep repeating that there is no paradox.

I quoted Dominus Iesus on this subject. It also disagrees with you, describing a 3 part division very similar to the chart we are discussing.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

As I said,

The Catholic Church is that which is in the center of the circle (communities in communion with Rome as in the Roman Pontiff). Those in complete union with the pope are Catholic. All others listed, are NOT Catholic nor the Catholic Church.

recognizing that those communities, which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church , have the character of Churches also means necessarily that these Churches are — in an apparent paradox — portions of the one Church, that is to say, of the one Catholic Church , portions in an anomalous theological and canonical situation. One could say similarly that theirs is a “participated ecclesiality according to an imperfect and limited presence of the Church of Christ”.

Your position from post 53 is here contrasted with a passage from Fr Ocariz. The one contradicts the other.

Fr Ocariz is attempting to deal with “an apparent paradox.” You keep repeating that there is no paradox.

I quoted Dominus Iesus on this subject. It also disagrees with you, describing a 3 part division very similar to the chart we are discussing.

the paradox is what JPII stated
the mission of the Church is endangered today by relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism, and where relativists take that.

IOW squishy ecumenical speak as well.

 

[michaelhager]

First, the chart is a great generalization but is in it’s intent, roughly correct.

But there are a couple of things to consider:

Protestants who recite the apostles creed, recognize themselves as part of the Catholic Church:

“I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints…”

I always wondered about this when I was Protestant, but it’s meaning is “the unified” church, while Catholics of the Roman rite say “One holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” meaning not only unified, but of the continuing, unbroken succession of the apostles.

So the line between Catholic and non Catholic is somewhat blurred, although "Communities in Communion with Rome sharpens it.

According to the Roman Catholic church, “Baptized Christians” should only include those baptized with water under the triune form. That line gets blurred by baptism of desire and of blood.

And then, we enter into the blurry outside ring of “anyone in a state of grace”. This includes those mentioned in the Catechism:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.” ccc847

Given all of this, I would say that the chart is largely correct, but we can add, also fro the Catechism this:

Who Belongs to the Catholic Church?

“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.”322 Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.: ccc838

There is much more on this in the preceding and following paragraphs that will help untangle any misconceptions about the true teachings of the Church.