Is this is how the Church of Jesus Christ does its business, with political jockeying and cronyism? Does this resemble in any way the Book of Acts? Throw in some bribery and out-of-wedlock children and we'll have a return to the Borgias.
This is the nature of fallen man. The lust for power is present wherever humans gather together, Protestant churches included.
It's just that the stakes are ridiculously smaller at the New Life Evangelical Community of Faith on Main Street, USA than they are at the Vatican. Also, nobody is watching.
If there wasn't any political jockeying and cronyism among Protestants, there wouldn't be more congregations than you can shake a stick at.
How many times have schisms been less about doctrine and more about personality and power?
We're often told that the divisive sins of Protestantism demonstrate sola Scriptura is practically unworkable. What do the profligate practices of the Magisterium tell us about how ineffective Roman Catholicism is in producing holiness and righteousness?
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an institution existed such as the Catholic Church claims to be. Wouldn't you expect men with mixed motivations to be vying for leadership within it?
Yes, there will always be some degree of mixed motives, as no one is sinless this side of heaven.
However, when an institution consistently displays behavior that is barely distinguishable from worldly institutions, it becomes difficult to see how it is imbued with the Holy Spirit and a special dispensation (as it were) to spiritually lead the whole Church. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is more and more righteous and holy living. I'd expect the Vatican, if it was what it claimed to be, to be an institution of ever increasing holiness--a shining light to the nations.
For what its worth, I hold Protestant bodies to the same standard. Many have questionable spiritual status by the standards of New Testament behavior, for both leaders and laypersons a like.
Asked: "What do the profligate practices of the Magisterium tell us about how ineffective Roman Catholicism is in producing holiness and righteousness?"
A lot if you happened to be walking in the Spirit of Faith and Truth.
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an institution existed such as the Catholic Church claims to be. Wouldn't you expect men with mixed motivations to be vying for leadership within it?"
I ask you, is there an argument about the Kingdom of Heaven going on here among these people who make up this club of men, "Cardinals"?
There really isn't a religious body quite like the Roman Catholic Church in existence in the world today, is there?
Yes, as has been answered already, there isn't.
I would also point out that there are no motivations among the True Church of the Living God in Heaven or on earth today about who is who or why.
God has a place for everyone of His Elect in His True Living Body of Christ.
Now that doesn't mean some struggle to understand one's "True" God created and ordained place in this True Living Body of Christ doesn't go on, because there clearly is a struggle that happens in the process of entering into the maturity of Christ. It is going on, even still, as to coming into one's place in the Body of Christ. The body of Christ is an active Living Being before both God and man on earth as it is in Heaven.
We see this struggle clearly with the instruction Paul gave Titus, here:
Tit 1:4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior. Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
At the end of the day God is still the One leading His children in their own personal triumph and victory over sin and death through Christ!
He has not nor does He have too leave this work of victory to popes and cardinals and men!
Remember reading this?:
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Matthew Schultz: "However, when an institution consistently displays behavior that is barely distinguishable from worldly institutions, it becomes difficult to see how it is imbued with the Holy Spirit and a special dispensation (as it were) to spiritually lead the whole Church."
I'd agree.
"What do the profligate practices of the Magisterium tell us about how ineffective Roman Catholicism is in producing holiness and righteousness?"
"I'd expect the Vatican, if it was what it claimed to be, to be an institution of ever increasing holiness--a shining light to the nations."
I don't know about that. I know the Bible speaks to individual sanctification, but does it speak to corporate sanctification too?
Honestly, the Bride of Christ (the invisible church and the visible church) will have blemishes. And that doesn't surprise me, nor does it cause me to despair.
I think people should follow Christ as their Lord and Savior...
no matter how bad and wicked and held in low repute and disdain the corporate Church is!
Of course, I don't want the Church to be held in disrepute and disdain, but it's still not an excuse for people to reject the Lordship of Christ. And in the end, it won't be.
How many times have schisms been less about doctrine and more about personality and power?
The problem with the papacy is that it is a complex of doctrines. And the papal doctrines are wrong. The only authoritative source saying "the papacy is in charge" is the papacy. It's not in Scripture. And if we go back and look at the "tradition" from a historical perspective, there is no "there" there.
All Rome has is some latent "prerogative" that remained "a mere letter" until massive infusions of cash from Constantine's coffers alerted them to the fact that, "hey, we've got lots of money and power". That's where the "doctrines" of the papacy derive from.
"I'd expect the Vatican, if it was what it claimed to be, to be an institution of ever increasing holiness--a shining light to the nations."
I'd expect it to go through periods of decay and renewal, like the Davidic monarchy.
"I ask you, is there an argument about the Kingdom of Heaven going on here among these people who make up this club of men, "Cardinals"?"
Sure. Whatever bitter politics may be going on, they're not motivated entirely by personal animosity and desire for power. There are competing visions among the Cardinals about how they should steer the Catholic Church.
"if division is evidence of an invalid rule of faith, what does this say about Catholicism's rule of faith?"
It's quite a stretch to compare the division between Cardinals Sodano and Bertone to those between the thousands of Protestant denominations.
"All Rome has is some latent "prerogative" that remained "a mere letter" until massive infusions of cash from Constantine's coffers alerted them to the fact that, "hey, we've got lots of money and power"."
St. Irenaeus already said in the second century that the entire Church must agree in doctrine with the Roman Church (http://www.pugiofidei.com/irenaeus.htm)
St. Irenaeus already said in the second century that the entire Church must agree in doctrine with the Roman Church
(a), That's a very questionable text. Although we have all of Irenaeus's "Against Heresies in Greek, that phrase only exists in a Latin translation. (b), It's a very questionable, very unclear "translation". And (c), aside from that, it's by no means certain what's being said.
So long as you are quoting Irenaeus, why not cite what's preliminary to all the "succession" talk: The apostles "wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless (1 Tim 3:2) in every respect. If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity."
Thus according to Irenaeus's standards, these "successors" (in fact, "successors" all through history), have all through the ages, brought "the greatest calamity" to the church.
I'd expect it to go through periods of decay and renewal, like the Davidic monarchy
That's speaking out of both sides of the RC mouth, though, for we are told over and over and over and over and over and over again that Matt 16:18 applies to the RCC. So which is it? The Davidic monarchy fell into utter apostasy many more times than it was faithful to God's Word. It ceased to exist and was replaced.
The other thing to note is how Ben Douglass' excuses are just as easily applied to your local Reformed Baptist congregation. So, what's the big deal about RCC, again?
"St. Irenaeus already said in the second century that the entire Church must agree in doctrine with the Roman Church"
JB has already pointed out that this interpretation of Irenaeus' words is doubtful. Suppose for the sake of the argument, it is correct.
Notice what he didn't say: "the bishop of Rome" or "the pope." Thus, if Irenaeus really meant that churches have a moral obligation and duty to follow what the "church of Rome" teaches, he's still only a Romanist, and not yet a Papist (or "Papalist" if "Papist" is deemed offensive).
It gets a lot worse for the Roman position when you look at what Irenaeus actually said in the context in which he actually said it. But even in the most spun-out versions of what he says fall short of teaching papalism.
"Although we have all of Irenaeus's 'Against Heresies' in Greek, that phrase only exists in a Latin translation."
That's news to me. I've always read that we only possess fragments of the original Greek. As to your points (b) and (c), those issues are addressed in the article I reference.
"Thus according to Irenaeus's standards, these 'successors' (in fact, 'successors' all through history), have all through the ages, brought "the greatest calamity" to the church."
I agree. When bishops and Popes behave badly it does tremendous harm to the Church.
"So which is it? The Davidic monarchy fell into utter apostasy many more times than it was faithful to God's Word."
I appealed to the example of the Davidic monarchy to establish the principle that bad behavior is consistent with a divine prerogative of leadership. That is consistent with the Catholic claims of infallibility.
"The other thing to note is how Ben Douglass' excuses are just as easily applied to your local Reformed Baptist congregation."
Indeed they are. Bad behavior on the part of Reformed Baptist elders would not prove that the Reformed Baptist Church is not the true Church.
That's news to me. I've always read that we only possess fragments of the original Greek. Ben, sorry, it’s my bad on the extent of the textual evidence we have for Irenaeus. I must have been thinking of some other text where infallible support for some infallible Roman doctrine such as Roman jurisdictional primacy seems only to exist in a faulty understanding of some garbled, misunderstood translation of a questionable text.
As to your points (b) and (c), those issues are addressed in the article I reference.
My hope is, Lord willing, to be examining these again in more detail some time in the near future.
This is how the Catechism explains the paradox of a holy church that is full of sinners:
"825 The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect. In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired ...
827 "Christ, 'holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:
The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Catholic epologists [taking their lead from notions such as the one you posted] bifurcate The One True Church® into a phenomenal church and a noumenal church. They conveniently relegate all the bad stuff to the phenomenal church. That’s just a shell. A simulacrum.
No matter how bad the church becomes, that can never impinge on the real church. For the real church is an inner, ethereal, indetectible, unfalsifiable quintessence of one true churchliness.
The real church is a suprahistorical entity which requires no historical evidence commensurate with the scope of its historical claims. The real church is impervious to historical counterevidence. The real church is a timeless, spaceless, airtight ideal.
For instance, the True church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. However, under no circumstances should the marks of the True church be confused with concrete, identifiable properties.
It doesn’t matter how much actual disunity you have in the church of Rome. That can never count as evidence against the unity of the church. Rather, any degree of disunity, however, wide and deep, is shunted off to the phenomenal shell of the church. That can never penetrate the essence of what makes the church “one.”
Likewise, it doesn’t matter how unholy the Roman church may be in practice. However corrupt, in time and space, from top to bottom, that only pertains to the outer shell of the church. For the True church remains spotless underneath the accumulated layers of turpitude.
Even though no amount of turpentine will ever be able to peel away the accumulated layers of turpitude to expose the hidden holiness of the church, buried beneath centuries of corruption, the faithful know in their heart of hearts that at the inaccessible core of the church there resides a pristine essence of sanctity.
The True church is indefectible. But not for a minute should that be connected with the actual performance of the church. No matter how error-ridden the Roman church may be in the actual administration of its internal affairs, each and every declension, however large or small, is automatically reassigned to the accidental shell of the church, while the unseen substance of The One True Church® remains intact and inviolate.
So, Philip, "she", "the Church", is not really there to do any penance, because "her children" are the sinners who do the penance. "She" is holy and infallible, and not in any way responsible, for example, for pedophile priests, or the bishops who hide them, or for political shenanigans which elect popes. "She" never has to take responsibility for those "sinners" "clasped to her bosom". Being "the Church" means never having to say you're sorry, except for "other people's sins".
Is this is how the Church of Jesus Christ does its business, with political jockeying and cronyism? Does this resemble in any way the Book of Acts? Throw in some bribery and out-of-wedlock children and we'll have a return to the Borgias.
ReplyDeleteThis is the nature of fallen man. The lust for power is present wherever humans gather together, Protestant churches included.
ReplyDeleteIt's just that the stakes are ridiculously smaller at the New Life Evangelical Community of Faith on Main Street, USA than they are at the Vatican. Also, nobody is watching.
If there wasn't any political jockeying and cronyism among Protestants, there wouldn't be more congregations than you can shake a stick at.
How many times have schisms been less about doctrine and more about personality and power?
We're often told that the divisive sins of Protestantism demonstrate sola Scriptura is practically unworkable. What do the profligate practices of the Magisterium tell us about how ineffective Roman Catholicism is in producing holiness and righteousness?
ReplyDelete"The One True Church® behind closed doors"
ReplyDeleteNot bringing glory to God in that newstory on yahoo.
No wonder secularists scoff at the institutionalized religion of Roma and no wonder some Catholics are becoming ex-Catholics.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an institution existed such as the Catholic Church claims to be. Wouldn't you expect men with mixed motivations to be vying for leadership within it?
ReplyDeleteBen,
ReplyDeleteYes, there will always be some degree of mixed motives, as no one is sinless this side of heaven.
However, when an institution consistently displays behavior that is barely distinguishable from worldly institutions, it becomes difficult to see how it is imbued with the Holy Spirit and a special dispensation (as it were) to spiritually lead the whole Church. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is more and more righteous and holy living. I'd expect the Vatican, if it was what it claimed to be, to be an institution of ever increasing holiness--a shining light to the nations.
For what its worth, I hold Protestant bodies to the same standard. Many have questionable spiritual status by the standards of New Testament behavior, for both leaders and laypersons a like.
Asked: "What do the profligate practices of the Magisterium tell us about how ineffective Roman Catholicism is in producing holiness and righteousness?"
ReplyDeleteA lot if you happened to be walking in the Spirit of Faith and Truth.
Nothing if you are not!
Ben,
ReplyDeletea couple of thoughts about this you write:
"Suppose, for the sake of argument, that an institution existed such as the Catholic Church claims to be. Wouldn't you expect men with mixed motivations to be vying for leadership within it?"
I ask you, is there an argument about the Kingdom of Heaven going on here among these people who make up this club of men, "Cardinals"?
There really isn't a religious body quite like the Roman Catholic Church in existence in the world today, is there?
Yes, as has been answered already, there isn't.
I would also point out that there are no motivations among the True Church of the Living God in Heaven or on earth today about who is who or why.
God has a place for everyone of His Elect in His True Living Body of Christ.
Now that doesn't mean some struggle to understand one's "True" God created and ordained place in this True Living Body of Christ doesn't go on, because there clearly is a struggle that happens in the process of entering into the maturity of Christ. It is going on, even still, as to coming into one's place in the Body of Christ. The body of Christ is an active Living Being before both God and man on earth as it is in Heaven.
We see this struggle clearly with the instruction Paul gave Titus, here:
Tit 1:4 To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior.
Tit 1:5 This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you--
Tit 1:6 if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination.
At the end of the day God is still the One leading His children in their own personal triumph and victory over sin and death through Christ!
He has not nor does He have too leave this work of victory to popes and cardinals and men!
Remember reading this?:
Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
"This is the nature of fallen man. The lust for power is present wherever humans gather together, Protestant churches included."
ReplyDeleteSince Catholics claim that their church is a cut above other churches, the defense of "it goes on everywhere" doesn't impress.
Also, Matthew Shultz nailed it; if division is evidence of an invalid rule of faith, what does this say about Catholicism's rule of faith?
Matthew Schultz: "However, when an institution consistently displays behavior that is barely distinguishable from worldly institutions, it becomes difficult to see how it is imbued with the Holy Spirit and a special dispensation (as it were) to spiritually lead the whole Church."
ReplyDeleteI'd agree.
"What do the profligate practices of the Magisterium tell us about how ineffective Roman Catholicism is in producing holiness and righteousness?"
"I'd expect the Vatican, if it was what it claimed to be, to be an institution of ever increasing holiness--a shining light to the nations."
I don't know about that. I know the Bible speaks to individual sanctification, but does it speak to corporate sanctification too?
Honestly, the Bride of Christ (the invisible church and the visible church) will have blemishes. And that doesn't surprise me, nor does it cause me to despair.
I think people should follow Christ as their Lord and Savior...
no matter how bad and wicked and held in low repute and disdain the corporate Church is!
Of course, I don't want the Church to be held in disrepute and disdain, but it's still not an excuse for people to reject the Lordship of Christ. And in the end, it won't be.
How many times have schisms been less about doctrine and more about personality and power?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the papacy is that it is a complex of doctrines. And the papal doctrines are wrong. The only authoritative source saying "the papacy is in charge" is the papacy. It's not in Scripture. And if we go back and look at the "tradition" from a historical perspective, there is no "there" there.
All Rome has is some latent "prerogative" that remained "a mere letter" until massive infusions of cash from Constantine's coffers alerted them to the fact that, "hey, we've got lots of money and power". That's where the "doctrines" of the papacy derive from.
"I'd expect the Vatican, if it was what it claimed to be, to be an institution of ever increasing holiness--a shining light to the nations."
ReplyDeleteI'd expect it to go through periods of decay and renewal, like the Davidic monarchy.
"I ask you, is there an argument about the Kingdom of Heaven going on here among these people who make up this club of men, "Cardinals"?"
Sure. Whatever bitter politics may be going on, they're not motivated entirely by personal animosity and desire for power. There are competing visions among the Cardinals about how they should steer the Catholic Church.
"if division is evidence of an invalid rule of faith, what does this say about Catholicism's rule of faith?"
It's quite a stretch to compare the division between Cardinals Sodano and Bertone to those between the thousands of Protestant denominations.
"All Rome has is some latent "prerogative" that remained "a mere letter" until massive infusions of cash from Constantine's coffers alerted them to the fact that, "hey, we've got lots of money and power"."
St. Irenaeus already said in the second century that the entire Church must agree in doctrine with the Roman Church (http://www.pugiofidei.com/irenaeus.htm)
"I'd expect it to go through periods of decay and renewal, like the Davidic monarchy."
ReplyDeleteIf the Son of David were not already on his throne, the papacy would make a lot more sense on those terms.
It's quite a stretch to compare the division between Cardinals Sodano and Bertone to those between the thousands of Protestant denominations.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't making that comparison.
St. Irenaeus already said in the second century that the entire Church must agree in doctrine with the Roman Church
ReplyDelete(a), That's a very questionable text. Although we have all of Irenaeus's "Against Heresies in Greek, that phrase only exists in a Latin translation. (b), It's a very questionable, very unclear "translation". And (c), aside from that, it's by no means certain what's being said.
So long as you are quoting Irenaeus, why not cite what's preliminary to all the "succession" talk: The apostles "wanted those whom they left as successors, and to whom they transmitted their own position of teaching, to be perfect and blameless (1 Tim 3:2) in every respect. If these men acted rightly it would be a great benefit, while if they failed it would be the greatest calamity."
ReplyDeleteThus according to Irenaeus's standards, these "successors" (in fact, "successors" all through history), have all through the ages, brought "the greatest calamity" to the church.
"It's quite a stretch to compare the division between Cardinals Sodano and Bertone to those between the thousands of Protestant denominations."
ReplyDeleteSo some division is acceptable and preferable to other division. Got it.
I'd expect it to go through periods of decay and renewal, like the Davidic monarchy
ReplyDeleteThat's speaking out of both sides of the RC mouth, though, for we are told over and over and over and over and over and over again that Matt 16:18 applies to the RCC.
So which is it? The Davidic monarchy fell into utter apostasy many more times than it was faithful to God's Word. It ceased to exist and was replaced.
The other thing to note is how Ben Douglass' excuses are just as easily applied to your local Reformed Baptist congregation. So, what's the big deal about RCC, again?
"St. Irenaeus already said in the second century that the entire Church must agree in doctrine with the Roman Church"
ReplyDeleteJB has already pointed out that this interpretation of Irenaeus' words is doubtful. Suppose for the sake of the argument, it is correct.
Notice what he didn't say: "the bishop of Rome" or "the pope." Thus, if Irenaeus really meant that churches have a moral obligation and duty to follow what the "church of Rome" teaches, he's still only a Romanist, and not yet a Papist (or "Papalist" if "Papist" is deemed offensive).
It gets a lot worse for the Roman position when you look at what Irenaeus actually said in the context in which he actually said it. But even in the most spun-out versions of what he says fall short of teaching papalism.
-TurretinFan
"Although we have all of Irenaeus's 'Against Heresies' in Greek, that phrase only exists in a Latin translation."
ReplyDeleteThat's news to me. I've always read that we only possess fragments of the original Greek. As to your points (b) and (c), those issues are addressed in the article I reference.
"Thus according to Irenaeus's standards, these 'successors' (in fact, 'successors' all through history), have all through the ages, brought "the greatest calamity" to the church."
I agree. When bishops and Popes behave badly it does tremendous harm to the Church.
"So which is it? The Davidic monarchy fell into utter apostasy many more times than it was faithful to God's Word."
I appealed to the example of the Davidic monarchy to establish the principle that bad behavior is consistent with a divine prerogative of leadership. That is consistent with the Catholic claims of infallibility.
"The other thing to note is how Ben Douglass' excuses are just as easily applied to your local Reformed Baptist congregation."
Indeed they are. Bad behavior on the part of Reformed Baptist elders would not prove that the Reformed Baptist Church is not the true Church.
But is falling into complete and total apostasy and losing track of the Word of God entirely consistent with it?
ReplyDeleteHow about ceasing to exist?
Ben Douglass: "Bad behavior on the part of Reformed Baptist elders would not prove that the Reformed Baptist Church is not the true Church."
ReplyDeleteDoes any Reformed Baptist Church claim to be "the One True Church"?
"But is falling into complete and total apostasy and losing track of the Word of God entirely consistent with it?
ReplyDeleteHow about ceasing to exist?"
No.
"Does any Reformed Baptist Church claim to be "the One True Church"?"
No.
That's news to me. I've always read that we only possess fragments of the original Greek.
ReplyDeleteBen, sorry, it’s my bad on the extent of the textual evidence we have for Irenaeus. I must have been thinking of some other text where infallible support for some infallible Roman doctrine such as Roman jurisdictional primacy seems only to exist in a faulty understanding of some garbled, misunderstood translation of a questionable text.
As to your points (b) and (c), those issues are addressed in the article I reference.
My hope is, Lord willing, to be examining these again in more detail some time in the near future.
This is how the Catechism explains the paradox of a holy church that is full of sinners:
ReplyDelete"825 The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect. In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired ...
827 "Christ, 'holy, innocent, and undefiled,' knew nothing of sin, but came only to expiate the sins of the people. The Church, however, clasping sinners to her bosom, at once holy and always in need of purification, follows constantly the path of penance and renewal." All members of the Church, including her ministers, must acknowledge that they are sinners. In everyone, the weeds of sin will still be mixed with the good wheat of the Gospel until the end of time. Hence the Church gathers sinners already caught up in Christ's salvation but still on the way to holiness:
The Church is therefore holy, though having sinners in her midst, because she herself has no other life but the life of grace. If they live her life, her members are sanctified; if they move away from her life, they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for those offenses, of which she has the power to free her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Philip, here is how Steve Hays responds:
ReplyDeleteCatholic epologists [taking their lead from notions such as the one you posted] bifurcate The One True Church® into a phenomenal church and a noumenal church. They conveniently relegate all the bad stuff to the phenomenal church. That’s just a shell. A simulacrum.
No matter how bad the church becomes, that can never impinge on the real church. For the real church is an inner, ethereal, indetectible, unfalsifiable quintessence of one true churchliness.
The real church is a suprahistorical entity which requires no historical evidence commensurate with the scope of its historical claims. The real church is impervious to historical counterevidence. The real church is a timeless, spaceless, airtight ideal.
For instance, the True church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. However, under no circumstances should the marks of the True church be confused with concrete, identifiable properties.
It doesn’t matter how much actual disunity you have in the church of Rome. That can never count as evidence against the unity of the church. Rather, any degree of disunity, however, wide and deep, is shunted off to the phenomenal shell of the church. That can never penetrate the essence of what makes the church “one.”
Likewise, it doesn’t matter how unholy the Roman church may be in practice. However corrupt, in time and space, from top to bottom, that only pertains to the outer shell of the church. For the True church remains spotless underneath the accumulated layers of turpitude.
Even though no amount of turpentine will ever be able to peel away the accumulated layers of turpitude to expose the hidden holiness of the church, buried beneath centuries of corruption, the faithful know in their heart of hearts that at the inaccessible core of the church there resides a pristine essence of sanctity.
The True church is indefectible. But not for a minute should that be connected with the actual performance of the church. No matter how error-ridden the Roman church may be in the actual administration of its internal affairs, each and every declension, however large or small, is automatically reassigned to the accidental shell of the church, while the unseen substance of The One True Church® remains intact and inviolate.
So, Philip, "she", "the Church", is not really there to do any penance, because "her children" are the sinners who do the penance. "She" is holy and infallible, and not in any way responsible, for example, for pedophile priests, or the bishops who hide them, or for political shenanigans which elect popes. "She" never has to take responsibility for those "sinners" "clasped to her bosom". Being "the Church" means never having to say you're sorry, except for "other people's sins".
ReplyDelete