Who is the Church?

[Crimson_Silence]

So if my memory serves, didn’t Catholics used to consider that the Church is the clergy? And that it wasn’t until Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in which the laity also became the Church? But wouldn’t this cause theological problems? Say on the grounds that since the Church is an institution - visible and invisble - that only those working within the institution should be part of that institution, while the laity are mere disciples?

Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly.

 

[HelenRose]

So if my memory serves, didn’t Catholics used to consider that the Church is the clergy? And that it wasn’t until Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in which the laity also became the Church? But wouldn’t this cause theological problems? Say on the grounds that since the Church is an institution - visible and invisble - that only those working within the institution should be part of that institution, while the laity are mere disciples?

Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly.

The Church is and always has been the Bride of Christ.

It is my understanding that encyclicals are not written to change teachings but to clarify teachings. I am sure that what Pope Pius did was correct a misconception that people held about the Church.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

The Church is and always has been the Bride of Christ.

It is my understanding that encyclicals are not written to change teachings but to clarify teachings. I am sure that what Pope Pius did was correct a misconception that people held about the Church.

Yeah but can’t someone explain that to me further? I keep reading the encyclicals and I’m just not understanding.

 

[TRH1292]

The Church is the body of Christ. Those that belong to the Church are those that profess its faith and and partake of its sacraments.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

The Church is the body of Christ. Those that belong to the Church are those that profess its faith and and partake of its sacraments.

No no I know that. What I mean is what do the encyclicals, papal bulls, bible verses say?

I’m beginning to think I’m not being clear enough.

 

[Aramis]

So if my memory serves, didn’t Catholics used to consider that the Church is the clergy? And that it wasn’t until Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in which the laity also became the Church? But wouldn’t this cause theological problems? Say on the grounds that since the Church is an institution - visible and invisble - that only those working within the institution should be part of that institution, while the laity are mere disciples?

Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly.

It is all validly ordained bishops who hold the true faith (the faith of the Ecumencial Council Fathers), and all those in full communion with them.

The priests, deacons, minor clerics, laity and religious in communion with their bishop, and all the bishops in communion with each other constitute the visible church… sadly divided into 4 major groups (Catholic Communion, Oriental Orthodox Communion, Eastern Orthodox Communion, Assyrian Church of the East).

 

[Crimson_Silence]

It is all validly ordained bishops who hold the true faith (the faith of the Ecumencial Council Fathers), and all those in full communion with them.

The priests, deacons, minor clerics, laity and religious in communion with their bishop, and all the bishops in communion with each other constitute the visible church… sadly divided into 4 major groups (Catholic Communion, Oriental Orthodox Communion, Eastern Orthodox Communion, Assyrian Church of the East).

But why is the laity the Church?

And on top of that; if the laity is the Church, wouldn’t that mean that the laity can perform priestly duties without the need for a priest?

 

[Aramis]

But why is the laity the Church?

And on top of that; if the laity is the Church, wouldn’t that mean that the laity can perform priestly duties without the need for a priest?

THe church without laity is meaningless. All sacraments involved the laity. We, the laity, are the body of the church. without us, the clergy and religious have no role.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

THe church without laity is meaningless. All sacraments involved the laity. We, the laity, are the body of the church. without us, the clergy and religious have no role.

But didn’t I just say that the Church considered the Church the clergy and all others its followers? If you can say these things, then you have evidence.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

So if my memory serves, didn’t Catholics used to consider that the Church is the clergy? And that it wasn’t until Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in which the laity also became the Church? But wouldn’t this cause theological problems? Say on the grounds that since the Church is an institution - visible and invisble - that only those working within the institution should be part of that institution, while the laity are mere disciples?

Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly.

Here is a link to the Catechism on The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Maybe this will help.

And, if I may offer a suggestion, it may help you to get answers to your questions if you utilize the Catechism rather than Papal Bulls and Encyclicals that are written usually to address certain issues, in certain times. Guidance from a priest may also be helpful in clearing up some of your misgivings and misunderstandings.

 

[Filii_Dei]

But why is the laity the Church?

And on top of that; if the laity is the Church, wouldn’t that mean that the laity can perform priestly duties without the need for a priest?

I think we could ask ourselves this: Is a nurse a medical professional? Does a nurse being a medical professional mean he/she can perform operations without the need for a surgeon?

Be it as it may be, being part of the Church has absolutely no bearing on whether one can perform duties that are not proper to one’s place. Such duties are reserved to those who are empowered to do so. There is no principle that says that simply because one is part of the Church, that one can do whatever anybody else in the Church can.

 

[Todd977]

If you look in a dictionary you will see that the word “Church” can be used to refer to many differrent groups. In its most general usage, it refers to all Christians everywhere. In one of its more restrictive usages, it refers only to the governing religious authorities among Christians, the clergy. There are intermediate usages as well.

 

[Brendan_64]

So if my memory serves, didn’t Catholics used to consider that the Church is the clergy? And that it wasn’t until Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in which the laity also became the Church? But wouldn’t this cause theological problems? Say on the grounds that since the Church is an institution - visible and invisble - that only those working within the institution should be part of that institution, while the laity are mere disciples?

Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly.

The Church is many things at the same time, an institution, a mystical body, a community of disciples and much more. Different models of the Church have been given greater emphasis at different points in the history of the Church, yet there is truth in all these models.

The point is that, as mere mortals, we cannot fully understand the Church as she is a mystery, so we create our own (sometimes apparently conflicting, other times complementary) models of what the Church is in order to help us have some sort of flawed understanding of the Church.

Avery Dulles’s short book ‘Models of the Church’ is worth reading.

 

[Crimson_Silence]

Here is a link to the Catechism on The Church - People of God, Body of Christ, Temple of the Holy Spirit.
Maybe this will help.

And, if I may offer a suggestion, it may help you to get answers to your questions if you utilize the Catechism rather than Papal Bulls and Encyclicals that are written usually to address certain issues, in certain times. Guidance from a priest may also be helpful in clearing up some of your misgivings and misunderstandings.

“Characteristics of the People of Got”

HA! The Catechism has a typo.

I mean its not even answering my question of why. It’s just telling me what it is.

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

This certainly doesn’t seem like the Catholic Church I know. In theory it sounds nice, but in practice, there is a lack of evidence in my sector of Catholicism. :nope:

Most of this isn’t even talking about who the Church is. It just answers who Jesus’ body is. So is there a distinction between Church and Body?

790 Believers who respond to God’s word and become members of Christ’s Body, become intimately united with him: "In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe, and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his Passion and glorification."220

Can the body also be its own bride?

The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.236 The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb.237 "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her."238

If this is the case, then shouldn’t the laity not be the Church but the body?

 

[Filii_Dei]

Most of this isn’t even talking about who the Church is. It just answers who Jesus’ body is. So is there a distinction between Church and Body?

No there isn’t. Why is there a need to be a distinction between Church and Body?

Can the body also be its own bride?

These are analogies. Why does their metaphorical sense have to be taken so literally?

If this is the case, then shouldn’t the laity not be the Church but the body?

Why should being the Church and being of the Body of Christ have to be mutually exclusive categories in the first place?

 

[Filii_Dei]

I mean its not even answering my question of why. It’s just telling me what it is.

Actually it does answer why the laity is part of the Church - because the Church is defined as including the laity, and it has always been, that’s why. It’s a bit like asking why a circle is round - people will tell you that it’s just how a circle is defined.

I think the problem is that your question ‘why’ isn’t very clearly phrased. I think what you mean is that you believe that the Church was once defined as to only encompass the clergy, and you believe that the Church has recently changed its definition to include the laity as well, and you are now asking why this change - or what you think is a change - has happened. Am I right?

Most of this isn’t even talking about who the Church is. It just answers who Jesus’ body is. So is there a distinction between Church and Body?

No there isn’t. The Church is the Body of Christ. That’s why the passage is relevant. Why is there a need to be a distinction between the Church and the Body of Christ?

Can the body also be its own bride?

These are analogies. Their metaphorical descriptions need not be be taken so literally.

If this is the case, then shouldn’t the laity not be the Church but the body?

Why should being the Church and being of the Body of Christ have to be mutually exclusive categories in the first place?

 

[Crimson_Silence]

Actually it does answer why the laity is part of the Church - because the Church is defined as including the laity, and it has always been, that’s why. It’s a bit like asking why a circle is round - people will tell you that it’s just how a circle is defined.

I think the problem is that your question ‘why’ isn’t very clearly phrased. I think what you mean is that you believe that the Church was once defined as to only encompass the clergy, and you believe that the Church has recently changed its definition to include the laity as well, and you are now asking why this change - or what you think is a change - has happened. Am I right?

Yes and no. Why is the laity the Church? And if the laity was always the Church, then why did it need emphasis by Pope Pius XII?

No there isn’t. The Church is the Body of Christ. That’s why the passage is relevant. Why is there a need to be a distinction between the Church and the Body of Christ?

So I can understand. The Church is the Bride, yes? And Jesus is the Bridegroom, yes?

These are analogies. Their metaphorical descriptions need not be be taken so literally.

Then why make them?

Why should being the Church and being of the Body of Christ have to be mutually exclusive categories in the first place?

Can Christ serve himself? Isn’t Christ for others?

 

[Brendan_64]

Most of this isn’t even talking about who the Church is. It just answers who Jesus’ body is. So is there a distinction between Church and Body?

No, there isn’t a distinction. The Church (in the broadest sense) is the People of God, Christ’s Body on Earth. Christ is no longer here in bodily form, we are his body now.

Can the body also be its own bride?

Yes.

Just because my human body cannot also be my wife on a physical level, on another level myself and my wife are as one flesh. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one?So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matthew 19:2-6

So yes the body of Christ can also be the bride of Christ.

 

[Aramis]

Yes and no. Why is the laity the Church? And if the laity was always the Church, then why did it need emphasis by Pope Pius XII?

Because of a return of a heresy called Clericalism.

Clericalism as a heresy is that the only participation that matters is that of the clergy. It was rife around the turn of the 20th C.

All organizations of men have failings, even when God creates them. They are all in need of constant reminders to stay the path.

 

[Abu]

Aramis #6
The priests, deacons, minor clerics, laity and religious in communion with their bishop, and all the bishops in communion with each other constitute the visible church…

What is missing here is the Supreme Vicar of Christ, the Pope, on whom Christ built His Catholic Church, who has been given primacy and infallibility by Christ.

Crimson_Silence #16
Why is the laity the Church? And if the laity was always the Church, then why did it need emphasis by Pope Pius XII?

Whenever has the laity not been part of the Church?

The development of doctrine has proceeded from the institution of the Church and the development of the mission of the laity corresponds to the needs of the times as seen in Christifideles Laici (The Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World), the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Bl John Paul II, 1988, #3:
“A new state of affairs today both in the Church and in social, economic, political and cultural life, calls with a particular urgency for the action of the lay faithful. If lack of commitment is always unacceptable, the present time renders it even more so. It is not permissible for anyone to remain idle.”