one church/ meaning?

“If you read the first three chapters of first Corinthians, you will see that denominationalism was not just a scandal, but absolutely unthinkable and intolerable to Saint Paul because denominationalism is not the multiplying of a sub division of an organization, it’s the amputation of limbs from an organism.”

—	Peter Kreeft (via acatholicvibe)

found in Comment 181 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFUNICI.HTM  or http://www.readability.com/articles/vjpsml6x  which is about

DECLARATION "DOMINUS IESUS":ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Dominus Iesus provides a succinct explanation of the Catholic position:

The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27), which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18). And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

Therefore, 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.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”. (Dominus Iesus, 16-17)

What is the meaning of the statement, “the Church of Christ is present and operative also in these Churches, even though they lack full communion with the Catholic Church”? It means that the Holy Spirit, who is the soul of the Church, is especially present and operative in these Churches, through their valid sacraments. Wherever apostolic succession has not been maintained, then the only valid sacraments are baptism and marriage. Such communities are for this reason termed ‘ecclesial communities’, not particular Churches, while the Orthodox Churches are referred to as ‘Churches’ because they have preserved apostolic succession, and thus a valid Eucharist (as well as the other sacraments). Persons in separated Churches and ecclesial communities are in some degree of communion with the Catholic Church, on account of their baptism (which is a sacrament of the Catholic Church), and insofar as they share the same faith (e.g. the Nicene Creed). But, such persons are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, insofar as they do not share the same faith, the same sacraments, and communion with the successor of St. Peter.

from comment  185      on the same post:

...Saint Augustine could compose his little psalm, or ditty, begging the Donatist schismatics (who had broken from unity with the successor of Saint Peter) to come back to the fold: “You know what the Catholic Church is, and what that is cut off from the Vine; if there are any among you cautious, let them come; let them find life in the Root. Come, brethren, if you wish to be engrafted in the Vine: a grief it is when we see you lying thus cut off. Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter: and see every succession in that line of Fathers: that is the Rock against which the proud Gates of Hell prevail not.”

from comment  here 170 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 Around AD 107, about seven years after the Apostle John died, St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his epistle to the Magnesians, wrote:

As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishopand presbyters. (Epist. Magnesians)

But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions.” (Epist. Philadelphians)

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast [Eucharist]; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (Epist. Smyrnaeans)

And St. Irenaeus, writing less than 100 years later, writes,

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies III.3)

To be in the Church, it was not enough to believe in Jesus and meet with other people who believed in Jesus. All the various heretical sects ‘believed in Jesus’. But they did not subject themselves to the successors of the Apostles. Instead they met in what St. Irenaeus calls “unauthorized meetings.” To be in the Church was to be in communion with the Catholic bishop of one’s city.

Your view sees the true church as being under the authority of Roman Catholics.

It is even more than that. The Catholic position is that the true Church is the Catholic Church, i.e. all those in full communion with the successor of St. Peter. Every other group or institution or denomination or sect is something that split off from the Church that Christ founded, and is thus in schism from the Church Christ founded.

from 173

When we read St. Ignatius of Antioch, it seems quite clear that the authority of the bishops was not based on their being in agreement with the laymen and the laymen’s interpretation of Scripture (as though every layman in the ‘pew’ had their own Bible). Rather, the orthodoxy or waywardness of the layman was based on his [i.e. the layman's] being in union (or disunion) with the bishop. And in St. Irenaeus we see that the orthodoxy (or waywardness) of the bishop was based on his being in union (or disunion) with the holder of the keys in succession from the Apostle Peter, the See to which was thereby given the “certain charism of truth.”

The point is that the early Church’s understanding of the authority of the bishops does not seem to be based on their agreement with the people’s interpretation of Scripture. There was not even a clear determination at that point of the books that now belong to the New Testament canon. But your position, by contrast, seems to be that ecclesial authority is based on agreement with your own interpretation of Scripture. So your position seems to be at odds with the early Church’s understanding of the authority of the bishops in relation to Scripture. The only place we find the notion that the bishops’ interpretation can be trumped by the individual layman’s own interpretation of Scripture, is among the early groups of heretics. The general means by which the heretics did this was by calling into question the teaching of the bishops: “Did God really say …?” And that is why it should concern you greatly, in my opinion, that your position is based on the same kind of second-guessing of the bishops on the basis of your own interpretation of Scripture, according to your own determination (based on what is self-evident to you) of which books are canonical.

Let me say, with all charity and sincerity, that from the point of view of the Catholic Church which Christ founded and which retains the keys entrusted to St. Peter, you are presently in heresy and schism, and have been deceived into believing a false gospel that teaches that people can never lose their justification no matter how grave their sin, and so deceives them into not repenting for mortal sin, because they are told that it has already been taken care of in the finished work of Christ. In other words, the stakes are very high here, not only for ourselves (i.e. you and me), but for all those hear our words and are influenced by us. It is of the utmost importance therefore, that we get to the bottom of our disagreement, and help each other find the truth (you helping me see the truth, if I am wrong, and I helping you see the truth, if you are wrong). So, first, I hope you read the “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority” article, and perhaps we can find some common ground there, and work forward from there.

from 176

All heretics quote Scripture. All heretics stand “united with a Bible.” All heretics (e.g. Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, Pelagians, Sabellians, etc.) think Rome is the serpent. By asserting that Rome is the serpent, you’ve just placed yourself in their company. You are standing on your own interpretation of Scripture (along with those who agree with your own interpretation of Scripture). The problem is that no one authorized you (or any other Protestant) to give the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. That authority belongs to those whom the Apostles authorized, and to those whom they in turn authorized, down to the present day. You have merely asserted that they lost this authority, but you have not demonstrated that they lost this authority. Before one rebels against a divinely established authority, it behooves one first to establish (not merely assert or assume) that this authority no longer has authority. This was the error of Korah and all his followers, when they rebelled against Moses.

from comment  20  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/01/a-response-to-scott-clark-and-robert-godfrey-on-the-lure-of-rome/

To maintain that the visible, universal Church can be visibly divided implies either (a) that it can perish, in which case the head has dispensed with the body, the Holy Spirit has departed from the whole Church, and Christ has divorced his bride, or (b) the one head can have multiple bodies, in which case the Holy Spirit is set against himself, and Christ is a polygamist. I reject both alternatives, maintaining instead that, although there have been many schisms from the Church, Christ in fact did establish one visible, universal Church, and this Church cannot be visibly divided, either in the sense of being destroyed or in the sense of being split into two or more visible, universal Churches. To maintain the contrary position, in the first form, is a kind of ecclesial deism, while the second form might be better dubbed “ecclesial promiscuity.”

from comment 45

 cite Section IV fromDominus Iesus, in light of your reference to Lumen Gentium. I still want to revisit that, but in the meantime here is an authoritative statement that seems relevant, both as a clarification of LG and to this discussion in general:

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”.49 This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).50

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”.51 Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.52

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession 53 — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”.54 With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”,55 that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church.56 But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.57

17. Therefore, 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.58 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.59 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.60

On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 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.62 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.63

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67

Footnotes:

(47) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14.
(48) Cf. ibid., 7.
(49) Cf. St. Augustine, Enarratio in Psalmos, Ps. 90, Sermo 2,1: CCSL 39, 1266; St. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, Praefatio, 6, 14: PL 75, 525; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 48, a. 2 ad 1.
(50) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 6.
(51) Symbolum maius Ecclesiae Armeniacae: DS 48. Cf. Boniface VIII, Unam sanctam: DS 870-872; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.
(52) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 4; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 11: AAS 87 (1995), 927.
(53) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 20; cf. also St. Irenaeus, Adversus haereses, III, 3, 1-3: SC 211, 20-44; St. Cyprian, Epist. 33, 1: CCSL 3B, 164-165; St. Augustine, Contra adver. legis et prophet., 1, 20, 39: CCSL 49, 70.
(54) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.
(55) Ibid.; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 13. Cf. also Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 15 and the Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(56) The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. “The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one ‘subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which — being elements of that same Church — tend and lead toward the Catholic Church” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).
(57) Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(58) Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1: AAS 65 (1973), 396-398.
(59) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 14 and 15; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17: AAS 85 (1993), 848.
(60) Cf. First Vatican Council, Constitution Pastor aeternus: DS 3053-3064; Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 22.
(61) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 22.
(62) Cf. ibid., 3.
(63) Cf. ibid., 22.
(64) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae, 1.
(65) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint, 14.
(66) Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 3.
(67) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 17; cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 4.

also from comment 214 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

He and I both accept Vatican II’s teaching that the one, true Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church. This means that all the elements of the one Church founded and willed by Jesus Christ exist, despite sins and schisms, in that unitary, perduring whole we call the Catholic Church. Other ecclesial bodies lack such elements in varying degrees. The Orthodox churches lack only unity with the first see of the Church; Protestant churches, even those that consider themselves catholic, lack apostolic succession and thus do not have, or in many cases even recognize, all the sacraments. But the action of the Holy Spirit is clearly present in all assemblies of those who are validly baptized, yielding “elements of truth and sanctification” outside the visible boundaries of the Church, which as such “tend toward Catholic unity.” The same action, though to less clear degrees, are active even among many people who are not baptized believers at all.

Yet the “one, true Church” spoken of here is necessarily visible, in the sense that it can and must include a particular, visible body: the communion of churches in communion with the Church of Rome. The ordinary means of incorporation into that body is sacramental baptism, which is itself a visible action of the Church. But God is not limited to that means, and the body in question is bigger than her visible part: she is the Mystical Body of Christ, his Bride, one body with him in a mystical marriage. Hence she includes the Church Triumphant, invisible to most of us until the Eschaton, and others on earth known to God alone. Membership in that Body is necessary for salvation; that is the meaning of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. But that membership is not limited to those visible to mortal eyes. Nor is formal membership is a guarantee of perseverance in grace and adherence to the Lord.

The difference between such an ecclesiology and the one Bryan has been criticizing is that the latter refuses to allow that the Mystical Body of Christ necessarily includes a particular, visible body historically continuous with the Church of the Apostles. The “real” Church is not identifiable with any such identifiable body, be it a particular church or a communion of churches; it consists only in the “true disciples” of Christ, whoever they are. People who subscribe to such an ecclesiology always feel free to judge and reject any particular, historical, visible church. No such church is seen as the indefectible subject of Christ’s promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against her; any such church can go off the rails, where the rails are laid down and defined by the judgment of this-or-that scholar or charismatic leader. That is ecclesial deism.

see also the article here not just the comment http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/#comment-53161

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/#why

St Cyprian http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

from comment  307 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/03/jason-stellman-tells-his-conversion-story/

One argument made at CtC that I believe is unrepresentative of Catholicism is that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded.

That’s not an argument; that’s a claim. Your objection to this is, apparently, that Christ did not found a Church. But Unitatis Redintegratio teaches that “Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only.” (UR, 1) It further teaches that “large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church” (UR, 3), also described as “Christ’s Catholic Church, which is “the all-embracing means of salvation,” (UR, 3). As Pope Leo XIII taught, the Church came forth from the side of the second Adam (cf. Divinum Illud Munu, 5). And Pope Pius XII taught that “But our Divine Savior governs and guides the Society which He founded directly and personally also.” (Mystici Corporis Christi, 39) and

Christ our Lord, when about to leave this world and return to the Father, entrusted to the Chief of the Apostles the visible government of the entire community He had founded. Since He was all wise He could not leave the body of the Church He had founded as a human society without a visible head. Nor against this may one argue that the primacy of jurisdiction established in the Church gives such a Mystical Body two heads. For Peter in view of his primacy is only Christ’s Vicar; so that there is only one chief Head of this Body, namely Christ, who never ceases Himself to guide the Church invisibly, though at the same time He rules it visibly, through him who is His representative on earth. After His glorious Ascension into Heaven this Church rested not on Him alone, but on Peter, too, its visible foundation stone. That Christ and His Vicar constitute one only Head is the solemn teaching of Our predecessor of immortal memory Boniface VIII in the Apostolic Letter Unam Sanctam; [61] and his successors have never ceased to repeat the same. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 40)

Likewise, the Responsa ad quaestiones of 2007 affirms “the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church.” (Responsa ad quaestiones, 3) This is the one Church to which all men must be joined for salvation, excepting invincible ignorance, as the Catechism explains:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. (CCC 846)

The Catechism itself teaches that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ. This is the unchanging teaching of the Church. To claim that Christ didn’t found a Church, or that the Church He founded is some other Church than the Catholic Church, is to deny a dogma of the Catholic Church.

from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html :

IV. UNICITY AND UNITY OF THE CHURCH

16. The Lord Jesus, the only Saviour, did not only establish a simple community of disciples, but constituted the Church as a salvific mystery: he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him (cf. Jn 15:1ff.; Gal 3:28; Eph 4:15-16; Acts 9:5). Therefore, the fullness of Christ’s salvific mystery belongs also to the Church, inseparably united to her Lord. Indeed, Jesus Christ continues his presence and his work of salvation in the Church and by means of the Church (cf. Col 1:24-27),47 which is his body (cf. 1 Cor 12:12-13, 27; Col 1:18).48 And thus, just as the head and members of a living body, though not identical, are inseparable, so too Christ and the Church can neither be confused nor separated, and constitute a single “whole Christ”. This same inseparability is also expressed in the New Testament by the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ (cf. 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:25-29; Rev 21:2,9).

Therefore, in connection with the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus Christ, the unicity of the Church founded by him must be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith. Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ: “a single Catholic and apostolic Church”. Furthermore, the promises of the Lord that he would not abandon his Church (cf. Mt 16:18; 28:20) and that he would guide her by his Spirit (cf. Jn 16:13) mean, according to Catholic faith, that the unicity and the unity of the Church — like everything that belongs to the Church’s integrity — will never be lacking.

The Catholic faithful are required to profess that there is an historical continuity — rooted in the apostolic succession — between the Church founded by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (cf. Jn 21:17), commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule her (cf. Mt 28:18ff.), erected for all ages as ‘the pillar and mainstay of the truth’ (1 Tim 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in] the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him”. With the expression subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council sought to harmonize two doctrinal statements: on the one hand, that the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only in the Catholic Church, and on the other hand, that “outside of her structure, many elements can be found of sanctification and truth”, that is, in those Churches and ecclesial communities which are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church. But with respect to these, it needs to be stated that “they derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

17. Therefore, 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.

“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”. In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”. “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.

The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”. [source]

from comment 609 here :http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/

Thanks for your comments. I’ll address them individually:

So long as you define the true Church as a visible, hierarchical institution, and that the promise of salvation is made to that visible institution, then it simply doesn’t work to say that a spiritually dead Catholic is not saved.

This objection equivocates on the word ‘salvation.’ There is no promise that every individual who becomes a member of the visible Church Christ founded will die in a state of grace, and thus will go to heaven. There is, however, a promise to the visible Church Christ founded, that the Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth, and that the gates of hell will not prevail against her. But that promise (to the visible Church) does not guarantee heaven to every individual member of the visible Church, because it does not guarantee that every individual member of the visible Church will die in a state of grace. The promise of salvation to all who die in a state of grace is not the same promise of salvation to the visible Church. Hence the objection is based on an equivocation.

Next you wrote:

He is part of the very Body of Christ. I’m yet to see a Catholic face that question head on without bifurcating the church into the visible, which may have both wheat and chaff, and the invisible true Church which is true believers only.

The Church is not “bifurcated” into the visible and invisible, just as Christ is not “bifurcated” into the visible and invisible, because this concept (of bifurcation) implies division; there are not two Churches, just as there are not two Christs (i.e. a visible Christ and an invisible Christ). However, just as Christ has a visible aspect and an invisible aspect, so too does His Body, the Church. Hence the Catechism teaches that the Church has both dimensions:

770 The Church is in history, but at the same time she transcends it. It is only “with the eyes of faith”183 that one can see her in her visible reality and at the same time in her spiritual reality as bearer of divine life.

The Church – both visible and spiritual

771 “The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men.”184 The Church is at the same time:

– a “society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;

– the visible society and the spiritual community;

– the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches.”185

These dimensions together constitute “one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element”:186

The Church is essentially both human and divine, visible but endowed with invisible realities, zealous in action and dedicated to contemplation, present in the world, but as a pilgrim, so constituted that in her the human is directed toward and subordinated to the divine, the visible to the invisible, action to contemplation, and this present world to that city yet to come, the object of our quest.187

O humility! O sublimity! Both tabernacle of cedar and sanctuary of God; earthly dwelling and celestial palace; house of clay and royal hall; body of death and temple of light; and at last both object of scorn to the proud and bride of Christ! She is black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem, for even if the labor and pain of her long exile may have discolored her, yet heaven’s beauty has adorned her.188 (CCC 770 – 771)

And I have written about that in “Among You Stands One Whom You do not Know.”

Because there is a difference between incorporation into the Church through baptism, and sharing in the divine Life of the Church by being in a state of grace, a person can be a member of the Church through baptism, and yet be separated from the divine Life of the Church by mortal sin.

You wrote:

But making a distinction between the local congregation and the universal community of believers is something Catholicism cannot do.

Yes, we can. Of course there is a difference between the local congregation and the universal community. The universal community is much more than the local congregation, although the latter belongs to the former.

CCC #752 says these various meanings of the Church are “inseparable”. And that’s necessary because Catholic authority would die in a puff of logic if the true Church is said to be only true believers.

The meaning of each sense of the term ‘Church’ cannot be “separated” from the other, because they are conceptually related, and cannot be fully understood apart from the other. But that does not mean that these three meanings are synonymous, or that there is no difference between them, or between that to which they refer. The inseparability of the three concepts is not based on a need to preserve Catholic authority.

1. Tease out the consequences in particular for the spiritually dead, the heretics, the false teaches within the RCC

The consequences for those who die in a state of mortal sin are hell.

2. Do this without separating the definitions of “church”.

Already done. See above.

It’s no good saying the heretic is both in the true Church but not in the true Church.

That would be true if the Church did not, like Christ, have two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. But she does. And therefore it is possible to be united to her in one respect (i.e. through visible membership) while separated from her in another respect through lacking the Holy Spirit Who is the divine Life of the Mystical Body of Christ, just as it is possible already to share in that divine Life of the Spirit without being fully visibly united to Christ’s Mystical Body, as I explained here.

In the peace of Christ,

from comment 611:

(re: #610)

So is the spiritually dead Catholic part of the Body of Christ?

Yes, but again, if you presuppose that there is only one sense of being “part” of the Body of Christ, then you’re presupposing something denied by the Catholic Church, and thus both begging the question and criticizing a straw man.

(As Paul uses the term in the NT, it refers to believers alone. You’re welcome to argue otherwise.)

I agree. As I explained at the link at the end of my previous comment, heresy separates one from full membership in the Body of Christ. So if a person (who has reached the age of reason) rejects some article of the faith, he thereby separates himself from full membership in the Body of Christ. He must therefore be a believer, to be a full member. But that does not entail that every believer is ipso facto in a state of grace. There are other mortal sins besides [formal] heresy and apostasy.

If you say “yes”, then salvation is dependent on anything but faith. It’s more of a club membership.

The problem with that claim is that it does not follow from your premise. Just because a spiritually dead Catholic (i.e. a Catholic who still affirms the articles of faith, but who is presently in mortal sin) is still a visible part of the Body of Christ, it does not follow that salvation is “dependent on anything but faith.” If you disagree, you’ll need to show how your conclusion follows from your premises.

If you say the Catholic is not part of the Body of Christ, then Rome’s magisterial authority is necessarily weakened.

Again, your either/or is a straw man because as I explained in my previous comment, the Body of Christ (like Christ Himself) has two natures. So it is possible to be joined to this Body in one respect, while not joined to this Body in another respect.

Fundamental to your beliefs is that the Church to which the promise of divine guidance is given, is an external, visible organization.

Correct.

But even you in your post above don’t keep to it strictly enough, and start introducing more abstract definitions of the Church.

Which two definitions [of the Church] provided in the article above do you think are incompatible with each other? If none, then the various descriptions of the Church we provide in the article above should be understood as giving a complete and coherent picture of the Catholic understanding of the Church, rather than construed as competing or incompatible with each other.

Again, your objection applies likewise to Christ and orthodoxy Christology. It would be like saying that by describing Christ as having a human nature, and then describing Him as having a divine nature, I’ve somehow not kept to my original definition “strictly enough.” But that’s just to fail to see that the first description (i.e. that Christ has a human nature) is not intended to be exhaustive. In other words, the claim that Christ has a human nature, is not the same as the claim that Christ has only one nature, namely a human nature. Likewise, the claim that Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church, is a visible organization is not the same as the claim that Christ’s Body is only or merely a visible organization.

There is no teaching office I need to implicitly respect if the visible church is not strictly equivalent to the invisible community of believers.

That’s like saying that unless Eutychianism is true (and Christ has only one nature), then I don’t need to listen to Christ’s human will. Hence the importance not only of the Council of Chalcedon in which Christ’s having two natures was affirmed, but also of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in which monothelitism was condemned, and dyothelitism affirmed:

Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will. (CCC 475)

If we must listen not only to the divine will of Christ, but also to His human will, then just because the visible Church (i.e. the Church as visible) is not identical to or defined as the set of all persons in a state of grace, it does not follow that there is no (or can be no) divinely authorized ecclesial teaching office that we ought to respect and to which we ought to submit.

and 613:

(re: #612)

But you cannot with any certainty then that the pope is even Christian. You know what the fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5 are. Was Alexander VI part of the Body of Christ? By any biblical standard the answer must be “no”.

The difference between Protestantism and Catholicism is not merely disagreements about particular interpretations of Scripture. The difference is paradigmatic; namely, they are two different paradigms, and in order to be evaluated rightly against each other, they have to be understood as paradigms rather than viewed only through the lens of one of the two paradigms. Your objection that Catholics cannot with any certainty know that the pope is even a Christian presupposes a Protestant conception of what it means to be a Christian, and in that respect presupposes the Protestant paradigm. That’s because one of the differences between the two paradigms is the notion of what it even means to be a Christian. I’ve addressed/explained that difference in comment #204 above. So yes, we can’t with absolute certainty know the pope is in a state of grace, but in the Catholic paradigm that does not entail that we cannot know with moral certainty that the pope is a Christian, because in the Catholic paradigm to be a Christian is to have been baptized, and not formally renounced the faith. You also cannot know with absolute certainty that any fellow Protestant (including any Protestant leader) is in a state of grace (or elect-to-glory) because you cannot with absolute certainty see into another man’s heart. But you don’t think this subverts the possibility of Protestant leadership. So to accept Protestant leadership without being able to know with absolute certainty the heart of these leaders, while claiming that Catholic leadership is undermined by our not being able to know with absolute certainty whether they are in a state of grace, is to commit the fallacy of special pleading.

The second way in which your objection presupposes a Protestant paradigm is its implicit assumption that someone who is not in a state of grace cannot be or hold office in Christ’s Church. But in the Catholic paradigm, that notion is just a form of the Donatist error that St. Augustine rightly fought, just as he fought against the Manicheans and the Pelagians. And that Donatist error is itself a form of the error of rigorism, exemplified in the Montanists, the Novatians, and later the Cathars as well. So addressing your objection requires stepping back to those prior paradigm level differences. You can’t presuppose the truth of rigorism in an argument against the Catholic Church, because that presupposition simply begs the question, i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question, by presupposing the falsity of the Catholic paradigm.

The Body of Christ, the Church, the elect, the “called-out ones” doesn’t refer to a visible society that contains both saved and unsaved. It’s the people joined in Christ through their salvation, not according to some brute club membership.

That’s the Protestant claim. The problems with that invisible-church ecclesiology have been laid out in the article at the top of this page.

That’s your paradox.

It would be a paradox (or, more properly, contradiction) only if the Catholic Church held Protestant invisible-church ecclesiology, and then at the same time claimed to be a visible society. But she doesn’t. Hence there is no paradox in Catholic ecclesiology, nor have you shown there to be a paradox in Catholic ecclesiology.

Rome claims that it, a visible institution *is* the Body of Christ, and it must say this in order to have any authority over Christians.

That’s an uncharitable assumption regarding why the Catholic Church claims that she is the Church Christ founded. A more charitable explanation is that she claims this because she believes this to be true.

I’m a little underwhelmed that the leader of the Body of Christ might not be Christian.

See above, regarding the paradigm difference concerning the meaning of the word ‘Christian.’

Ex-cathedra statements are so rare as to be of negligible importance in the day-to-day life of a faithful Catholic, guided by the church. Those are the only times he is allegedly protected from error. The rest of the time, however, one still ought to submit to the gentleman in Rome, who you’re saying might not even be a Christian. And so Catholic authority begins to unravel.

Again, your objection presupposes a Protestant conception of what it means to be a Christian, and in that respect begs the question (i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question between the two paradigms).

At every turn one can second-guess the pope as not even being part of the Body of Christ.

Again, the Donatist error was hashed out fourteen hundred years ago. In the Catholic paradigm, even if the pope commits a mortal sin, he does not thereby cease to be a Christian, lose the charism he received through ordination, lose custody of the keys, or lose legal jurisdiction over the universal Church. If you presuppose the truth of rigorism in your argument against Catholicism, you’re presupposing the falsity of Catholicism. And that’s circular reasoning.

That’s why is necessary for Rome to not allow you to make the distinction between the visible and invisible Church.

Again, this is an uncharitable (and entirely unsupported) assumption regarding why the Catholic teaching is that the Church is visible, and that there are not two Churches (one visible, and one invisible), but only one Church (the one Church referred to in the Creed). A more charitable explanation is that this is what the Church believes about herself, namely, that the one Church has two dimensions (i.e. visible and invisible), just as Christ has two natures (i.e. human and divine).

When CCC #752 says the meanings of the of the ‘church’ are inseparable – legislative body from community of true believers, it’s logically necessary.

How so?

There’s just no way Rome can allow you to think that it’s leaders are not in Body of Christ. Authority would disappear.

Again, this is an uncharitable assumption on your part. You are assuming, without any evidential support, that the reason why the Catholic Church teaches what she is teaches is to prop up the [false] authority of her leaders. Another possible explanation, however, is that this teaching is what she received from the Apostles. The fallacy you are falling into here is what C.S. Lewis called bulverism, i.e. offering [psychological] explanations for why x is wrong, without first demonstrating that x is wrong.

But any distinction you make in order to allow for the presence of the spiritually dead and heretical Catholics, will have that consequence.

That’s where your conclusion is a non sequitur. You are claiming that any distinction we make that allows for the presence of spiritually dead and heretical Catholics entails that the authority of the Magisterium disappears. But that conclusion does not follow from that premise.

You really ought not to make the distinction you do.

You’ll need to give me a good reason, if you want this imperative to carry some weight. Anyone can issue imperatives.

Is the Catholic church the Body of Christ, the Church with a capital “C”?

Yes.

You agreed with me that the Body of Christ refers to believers alone.

What I agreed to in comment #611 above is that as St. Paul uses the term ἐκκλησία, it refers to believers, and that for persons who have reached the age of reason, being a believer is necessary to be a full member of the Church.

Is it a one-to-one equivalency, or are those concepts overlapping circles in a Venn diagram?

In order to answer this question, I would need to know what your pronoun “It” refers to.

It’s a straightforward question, and given what you said I will be deeply unsatisfied with anything but the straightforward answer: “no, the Catholic church is not the Body of Christ”. At which point you, Mr Cross, cease to be Catholic.

In order for me to answer your “straightforward question” you’ll need to specify precisely what is your question, because I don’t know what your question is.

Protestants do not deny that there is a visible “Church Catholic” on earth, consisting of all those who profess the true religion.

I have addressed that in “Why Protestantism has no “visible catholic Church.”

It’s just an empirical fact that Catholicism is not the true Church. Because, like any visible earthly church it has both wheat and chaff. In the NT, the true Church is clearly equated to the Body of Christ. A body of true Christians.

Here your argument goes like this:

(1) The Catholic Church has both wheat and chaff.
(2) In the NT, the true Church is equated to the Body of Christ.
(3) The Body of Christ consists only of true Christians.
Therefore,
(4) The Catholic Church does not consist only of true Christians.
Therefore,
(5) The Catholic Church is not the Body of Christ.

The problem with this argument is that the third premise begs the question, i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question between Protestants and Catholics. As I have explained in my previous comments, because Christ has two natures, therefore His Body the Church has two natures. Therefore it is possible to be joined to her according to one nature, while not united to her according to the other nature. So as I said at the end of #609, it is possible to be a visibly joined to the Church, through having received baptism, professing the same faith, and submitting to her Magisterium, while at the same time being in a state of mortal sin, and thus being separated from the divine Life of the Church, and thus being disconnected spiritually from the Body of Christ. Conversely, it is possible to be spiritually joined to the Church by sharing in that same divine Life, while not yet in full visible communion with the Church, through, for example, remaining in schism from her while in a condition of non-culpable ignorance regarding the obligation not to be in schism from her. So if you are defining “true Christians” as being only persons in a state of grace, then premise (3) begs the question, i.e. presupposes the truth of the Protestant paradigm, and thus presupposes precisely what is in question between the two paradigms, and thus engages in circular reasoning.

I won’t keep this thread going unnecessarily. And quit here.

I don’t mind the continuing of a discussion on an old thread, so long as the discussion is profitable and fruitful. It seems to me that the discussion so far is profitable insofar as it shows the paradigmatic nature of the Protestant-Catholic disagreement, and how we have to be diligent to avoid basing our arguments against the other paradigm on premises that presuppose the falsity of that other paradigm.

In the peace of Christ,

– Bryan

The Solemnity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of the Universe