Salvation Outside The Church?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ

1/17 - Our Lady's Saturday

Circle,

I don't mean to join in the crowd and gang up on you, so I'm sorry if it sounds like I am.

I think it's important to remember a couple of things. First, we as members of the Mystical Body of Christ are church - a group of faithful believers. However (Also?), we are not THE Church; that title belongs to the teaching Magesterium of the faithful under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The idea that we are THE Church did not come along until Martin Luther's time in 1542.

That's what I wrote.

so you agree in a universal invisible body as the church? That is interesting indeed.

And that's your response to it (or what is needed for my purposes here). I just want to clarify that I did not say that "a group of faithful believers" is the Church, but are simply church (with a little "c"). THE Church (capital "C") is the holy Magesterium of God. The particular article ("the") here is important because as church, we join in community to offer praise and worship to almighty God. However, since we are not the Church, we cannot set doctrines for ourselves, among other things. I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from. Pax et bonum, frater (peace and good things, brother).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Thanks friends. Do you see where we come from now Circle?

[Circle_Master]

I'm not sure how you make a distinction between 'church' and 'THE Church'. In the greek no such distinction can ever be made, so you would have to say that sometimes 'ekklesia' means an official 'THE Church' and sometimes it means all faithful believers. correct?

[Pio Nono]

JMJ

1/16 - Our Lady's Saturday

Let's talk about Greek for a moment.

New Testament (koine) Greek does use the word "ekklesia" interchangeably to mean "church" and "The Church". You might say that the double-use and implied double-meaning is tricky and iffy; however, it is the truth. The Greek language (in its koine form) has no articles like we do in English (a, an and the). These don't exist, so they must be thrown into a translation. Where it is thrown in and where it isn't is a matter of the context of the ancient text in question. Latin works the same way, and I can't write phonetic Greek, so we'll use it as an example.

Deus bonus est. (God is good.) AND

Deus bonus est. (God is the (philosophical) Good.)

You see how this can work? That's why we must take it within context. Cicero would depend on the second usage, while religious worshippers would depend on the first. Greek works in exactly the same way, and we cannot change ancient Greek ('cause it's already dead). The way that where these articles are thrown in is decided by the teaching office of the Holy Church (since She authentically interprets Holy Scripture). I hope this helps to clarify things.

[Circle_Master]

I agree 100% on your discourse on greek right there. So when in context it says that Christ will wed the church in Ephesians, I automatically believe He will marry all those who are faithful to Him when He returns. Correct? Not an institution.

[NewReformation]

JMJ

1/16 - Our Lady's Saturday

Let's talk about Greek for a moment.

New Testament (koine) Greek does use the word "ekklesia" interchangeably to mean "church" and "The Church". You might say that the double-use and implied double-meaning is tricky and iffy; however, it is the truth. The Greek language (in its koine form) has no articles like we do in English (a, an and the). These don't exist, so they must be thrown into a translation. Where it is thrown in and where it isn't is a matter of the context of the ancient text in question. Latin works the same way, and I can't write phonetic Greek, so we'll use it as an example.

Deus bonus est. (God is good.) AND

Deus bonus est. (God is the (philosophical) Good.)

You see how this can work? That's why we must take it within context. Cicero would depend on the second usage, while religious worshippers would depend on the first. Greek works in exactly the same way, and we cannot change ancient Greek ('cause it's already dead). The way that where these articles are thrown in is decided by the teaching office of the Holy Church (since She authentically interprets Holy Scripture). I hope this helps to clarify things.

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but here is another word besides ekklesia which is used for the word 'Church.' The other word is used I believe twice in the New Testament, and is descriptive of the Church as a whole(the Universal Church).

[Circle_Master]

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but here is another word besides ekklesia which is used for the word 'Church.' The other word is used I believe twice in the New Testament, and is descriptive of the Church as a whole(the Universal Church).

i'm not familiar with that. i do believe 'church' is only translated as such for 'ekklesia' and there are four other times in the NT that 'ekklesia' is used for a gathering. Such as when the people in ephesus when they were forming a mob to kill Paul for speaking against idols - that was an ekklesia

[Pio Nono]

JMJ

1/17 - Our Lady's Saturday

New Reformation,

You're mixing up ekklesia with katholikos, I believe. Katholikos is a term that means "universal", but not in the goofy way interpreted today. It meant "across the board" or "worldwide" and described the beliefs of the ancient ekklesia. In a sense, if you were a part of the ekklesia, then you were considered one of the katholikoi, or one who ascribed to the beliefs of the ekklesia.

I have not seen where an angry mob is described as an ekklesia, but a loose interpretation of the word would allow for that.

[Circle_Master]

I agree 100% on your discourse on greek right there. So when in context it says that Christ will wed the church in Ephesians, I automatically believe He will marry all those who are faithful to Him when He returns. Correct? Not an institution.

what would you respond Pio Nono?

[Anna]

In a sense, if you were a part of the ekklesia, then you were considered one of the katholikoi, or one who ascribed to the beliefs of the ekklesia.

I think this still holds true today.

"Church" is comprised of those members who adhere to the Teachings which Christ gave to the Apostles, which they handed down, which the Magisterium protected, recorded, pronounced, and interpretted.

Those who do not ascribe to the beliefs of The Church are separted brethren, and we hope and pray for unity one day, but I don't actually consider them to be "church." They believe as they wish, or as they see fit, not as The Church has consistently taught.

Pax Christi. <><

[megamattman1]

here's my reply for what it's worth.

the church is all believers. I can't give a link or anything but i've read theologians say that all believers are part of the catholic church even if they aren't members fully. they lack the knowledge to be full memebers but it doesn't mean they aren't members. incidentally even catholics don't have full knowledge.

"catholic", remember a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, meaning that no matter what you call it, believers in Jesus are the members of the church.

no protestant i know has claimed to know everything. the question comes down to do the believers know the fullness of the truth? if you said the fullness of the truth is only to believe in Jesus, you're missing the point of the Catholic Chuch. why is the church necessary? the answer would have to be that God intended to teach his children how to live and love correctly with the necessary faith in Jesus as the foundation of their new life on earth.

[megamattman1]

I automatically believe He will marry all those who are faithful to Him when He returns. Correct? Not an institution.

i would persnoally have to say of course he's not going to marry an institution. but that depends on how you define institution. by your context you must mean even those who aren't not faithful would be part of the institution.

i think what your underlying theme is (even if you don't realize it? or realize it but not in ways enough to state it explicitly!) is what i said in my last post. you don't understand the necessity of the catholic church.

is that a fair assumption?

Edited January 18, 2004 by megamattman1

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

From the Catechism:

The Church is the Bride of Christ

796 The unity of Christ and the Church, head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist.234 The Lord referred to himself as the "bridegroom."235 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 He has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring for her as for his own body:239

This is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many . . . whether the head or members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the Church."240 And the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."241 They are, in fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."242

[Anna]

So, are non-Catholic Christians really members of the Body of Christ, members of the Church, members of the body of believers, if their "body of beliefs' are not in accord with the beliefs of the Catholic Church?

If the answer is yes, then why do the Scriptures say: "One Faith, One baptism, One Lord"?

As one very wise poster puts it, "Christ has a bride, not a harem."

Pax Christi. <><

[Circle_Master]

So, are non-Catholic Christians really members of the Body of Christ, members of the Church, members of the body of believers, if their "body of beliefs' are not in accord with the beliefs of the Catholic Church?

If the answer is yes, then why do the Scriptures say: "One Faith, One baptism, One Lord"?

As one very wise poster puts it, "Christ has a bride, not a harem."

That's a good question. 1 Cor 12:13 does say that all who have the Holy Spirit within them are baptized into one body. You would even agree that protestants have the same Lord Jesus Christ. At least most of us protestants. So it would come down to one faith and how we interpret that. The faith you have (correct me if I'm wrong) is taught to be the entirety of the churches infallible teachings, the faith protestants purport is that of Jesus Christ coming in the flesh, dying, and rising again and now we must call on Him as Lord and Savior.

You may not like the terms, but it does seem you agree to one universal invisible church that consists of only faithful Christians (subject to pontificate in your case). Are we on the same page that this does exist? Or do we have a misunderstanding somewhere still?