Brick and Mortar

I’m interested in your definition of the concept of “Church”. Is there One “Church” and why? Is it a Holy “Church” and why? Is it a universal “Church” and why? Is it an Apostolic “Church” and why? Does “Church” have any meaning outside of bricks and mortar? Or is it a brick and mortar structure in which we hear the word of God and nothing more?

JoeT

I would interpret the Church , not as bricks and mortar,
But rather a Family , a family which is in communion with our belief , Faith in one God,
But like most Families , there are differences of opinion , not all right or wrong,
Like most families , we come together , not always happy with certain relitives , but still we come together , because we are one family , our faith in Jesus Christ brings us together as one , and I think that’s wonderful

I would encourage you to read the entire catechism section on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Greek “ekklesia,” means “those called out [by God]”

Hebrew qahal is the “assembly” of the Chosen People.

The only reason the buildings are called “churches” in English is that they are where the Church meets, and the Church is the Lord’s Household (kyriakon oikia in Greek, “kirche” in German, “cirice” in Old English).

In other languages, the word is usually a direct transliteration of Ekklesia (like iglesia in Spanish or eglwys in Welsh), or the local word for the Temple (like “templo”).

Hope this helped!

Short answer:
The Church is an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist.

Long answer:
catholic.com/documents/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

Longer answer:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Longest answer: follow the footnotes of the longer answer::smiley:

256 LG 8.
257 Cf. DS 2888.
258 Vatican Council I, De Filius 3:DS 3013.
259 UR 2 § 5.
260 GS 78 § 3.
261 UR 2 § 2.
262 St. Clement Of Alexandria, Pæd. 1,6,42:PG 8,300.
263 LG 13 § 2.
264 Eph 4:3.
265 Col 3:14.
266 Cf. UR 2; LG 14; CIC, can. 205.
267 LG 8 § 2.
268 UR 3 § 5.
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
277 UR 4 § 3.
278 Jn 17:21; cf. Heb 7:25.
279 Cf. UR 1.
280 Cf. UR 6.
281 UR 7 § 3.
282 UR 8 § 1.
283 Cf. UR 9.
284 Cf. UR 10.
285 Cf. UR 4; 9; 11.
286 Cf. UR 12.
287 UR 5.
288 UR 24 § 2.
289 LG 39; Cf. Eph 5:25-26.
290 LG 12.
291 Acts 9:13; 1 Cor 6:1; 16:1.
292 SC 10.
293 UR 3 § 5.
294 LG 48.
295 LG 48 § 3.
296 LG 11 § 3.
297 LG 42.
298 St. Thérèse Of Lisieux, Autobiography of a Saint, tr. Ronald Knox (London: Harvill, 1958) 235.
299 LG 8 § 3; Cf. UR 3; 6; Heb 2:17; 726; 2 Cor 5:21.
300 Cf. 1 Jn 1:8-10.
301 Cf. Mt 13:24-30.
302 Paul VI, CPG § 19.
303 Cf. LG 40; 48-51.
304 John Paul II, CL 16,3.
305 CL 17, 3.
306 LG 65; cf. Eph 5:26-27.
307 St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Smyrn. 8,2:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,311.
308 UR 3; AG 6; Eph 1:22-23.
309 Cf. AG 4.
310 Cf. Mt 28:19.
311 LG 13 §§ 1-2; cf. Jn 11:52.
312 LG 26.
313 Cf. CD 11; CIC, cann. 368-369; CCEO, cann. 171,1; 178; 311,1; 312.
314 LG 23.
315 St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Ad Rom. 1,1:Apostolic Fathers,II/2,192; cf. LG 13.
316 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3,3,2:PG 7/1,849; Cf. Vatican Council I:DS 3057.
317 St. Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theo.:PG 91:137-140.
318 Paul VI, EN 62.
319 LG 23.
320 LG 13.
321 LG 14.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
325 LG 16.
326 Cf. NA 4.
327 Roman Missal, Good Friday 13:General Intercessions,VI.
328 Rom 9:4-5.
329 Rom 11:29.
330 LG 16; cf. NA 3.
331 NA 1.
332 LG 16; cf. NA 2; EN 53.
333 LG 16; cf. Rom 1:21, 25.
334 St. Augustine, Serm. 96,7,9:PL 38,588; St. Ambrose, De virg. 18 118:PL 16,297B; cf. already 1 Pet 3:20-21.
335 Cf. Cyprian, Ep. 73.21:PL 3,1169; De unit.:PL 4,509-536.
336 LG 14; cf. Mk 16:16; Jn 3:5.
337 LG 16; cf. DS 3866-3872.
338 AG 7; cf. Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.
339 AG 1; cf. Mt 16:15.
340 Mt 28:19-20.
341 AG 2.
342 Cf. John Paul II, RMiss 23.
343 2 Cor 5:14; cf. AA 6; RMiss 11.
344 1 Tim 2:4.
345 John Paul II, RMiss 21.
346 AG 5.
347 Tertullian, Apol. 50,13:PL 1,603.
348 GS 43 § 6.
349 LG 8 § 3; 15; AG 1 § 3; cf. RMiss 12-20.
350 LG 8 § 3.
351 GS 40 § 2.
352 Cf. RMiss 42 47.
353 AG 15 § 1.
354 Cf. RMiss 48-49.
355 Cf. RMiss 52-54.
356 AG 6 § 2.
357 Cf. RMiss 50.
358 UR 4 § 8.
359 Cf. RMiss 55.
360 AG 9.
361 AG 9.
362 Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14.
363 Cf. Mt 28:16-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:7-8; Gal 1:1; etc.
364 Cf. Acts 2:42.
365 Cf. 2 Tim 1:13-14.
366 AG 5.
367 Roman Missal, Preface of the Apostles I.
368 Mk 3:13-14.
369 Jn 20:21; cf. 13:20; 17:18.
370 Mt 10:40; cf. Lk 10:16.
371 Jn 5:19, 30; cf. Jn 15:5.
372 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 5:20; 1 Cor 4:1.
373 LG 20; cf. Mt 28:20.
374 LG 20; cf. Acts 20:28; St. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor. 42,44:PG 1,291-300.
375 LG 20 § 2.
376 LG 20 § 2.
377 AA 2.
378 AA 4; cf. Jn 15:5.
379 AA 3.
380 Rev 19:6.
381 Eph 1:4.
382 Rev 21:9.
383 Rev 21:10-11.
384 Rev 21:14.

This tells you what those abbreviations mean:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/abbrev.htm

A church is a building where the faithful meet. A church is also a community of believers. The ISIS can blow up churches and behead children, but they can’t destroy their faith.
THAT is a CHURCH!

If you’re talking about THE Church then it is the Catholic Church (and I’m including the Eastern Rites here). If you are talking about A church then it is usually a demonimation, or sometimes an individual building.

Is there One “Church”

There is one Church with the fullness of truth, empowered to teach with Our Lord’s authority through the Holy Spirit.

and why?

Because Jesus only established one Church. And it was that way for a thousand years.

Is it a Holy “Church” and why?

The Church is holy because she teaches a holy doctrine. Anyone who adheres to the teaching of the Church will be personally holy. Those who deviate from Church teaching are sinners, but they are still part of the Holy Church.

Is it a universal “Church” and why?

“Universal” means for all people, in all places, and at all times. This was a rather new concept 2000 years ago. Jews, for example, were people who were born Jewish. A gentile could never become a Jew. And it wasn’t entirely clear in the Apostolic Era whether gentiles could become Christians either (after all, Jesus and the Apostles were all Jews).

Is it an Apostolic “Church” and why?

An “Apostolic” Church means it has bishops who were ordained by bishops, etc, until you get to the first Bishop, who was an Apostle.

There’s a common misconception that an Apostolic Church is automatically has valid Orders. This is not true. Like all Sacraments, Holy Orders requires five valid conditions (minister, form, intent, matter, and subject). The valid minister of Holy Orders is a Bishop of Apostolic Succession. But an Ordination is invalid if any of the OTHER four conditions are invalid.

The Anglican Church, for example, has valid Apostolic Succession, and four a generation or two had valid Orders (and was fully Catholic), but it forfeited the validity of Her Orders through a protracted use of an invalid form.

Does “Church” have any meaning outside of bricks and mortar?

As I said above, the word can have different meanings based on context. If someone says that arsonists “burned down a church” then we understand it to mean a Christian house of worship.

I’m interested, how is the Church an “extension of the Incarnation”? How can the Incarnate Word be an extension of itself?

The great Protestant schism didn’t come from the novel idea concerning the reality of the Eucharist, rather it came the novel idea born in relativism that the Church was a book.

JoeT

I can agree

But rather a Family , a family which is in communion with our belief , Faith in one God, But like most Families , there are differences of opinion , not all right or wrong,

What about those not in the “Catholic family.” Or, have I jumped to a conclusion and you mean that the family consists of all regardless of what faith they confess?

JoeT

Thank you, I will do just that.

JoeT

Um, it didn’t help. It seemed too vague for me to get the sense of the meaning in “church”. Who are they that are called out? How are they one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, why is it Christ calls us to ‘Church’?

I hope you’ll fill in the blanks for me.

JoeT

Am I to understand there is a hierarchy of Churches? There is the “fullest of them” and then the “not so full”? Otherwise, one church is as good as another?

JoeT

I’m not sure what you were trying to say here, but it is wrong. The Anglican ecclesial community is not Apostolic, and therefore not a Church. It lost apostolic succession when it chose invalid Holy Orders. The two are linked.

Acts 9:1-5, "But Saul, still breathing threats of slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, that if he found any men or women belonging to this Way (a word used for Christianity at that time), he might bring them in bonds to Jerusalem. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew near to Damascus, when suddenly a light from heaven shone round about him; and falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why dost thou persecute me?"And he said, “Who art thou Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus whom thou art persecuting.”

Why did Jesus Christ say, “Why doest thou persecute me?”, instead of ‘Why dost thou persecute My Church’?
How can Saul be persecuting Jesus if He is in heaven?
It is because His Church is his body and He is the head. (Eph 5:23).

The great Protestant schism didn’t come from the novel idea concerning the reality of the Eucharist, rather it came the novel idea born in relativism that the Church was a book.

I think that’s half of it. Protestantism has no unity because it has no Eucharist.

There are varying degrees of separation with other churches. That is a both/and answer to a this/or that question. The Catholic Church didn’t separate from anyone. We call them “separated brethren” or “ecclesiastical communities” because they are still Christians. They have many means to salvation, but they lack the means to salvation in the fullest sense. “varying degrees of separation” does not mean hierarchy. If one church is as good as another, that would be indifferentism which can lead to a loss of faith.

Bricks and mortar have nothing to do with The Church that Jesus Christ founded. The connotation of a building in English did not came about until many, many centuries later.

Yes, this is what I am saying. There is one Church with the fullness of truth, and any number of churches with some subset of the truth (usually with some error mixed in).

I understand that the Church is the Body of Christ and Christ her head, but if Christ is the Incarnate Word of God, then how is He an ‘extension’ of Himself? Recall that you said, “The Church is an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist.” How do we get from the Christ Himself to the ‘extension’ of the Christ?

Am I being too picky?

I think that’s half of it. Protestantism has no unity because it has no Eucharist.

But, I contend that’s not the root of the problem. The root is the virus like philosophy of relativism, the Word has subjective meaning, hence the Eucharist is ‘mere symbol’ without substance.

There are varying degrees of separation with other churches. That is a both/and answer to a this/or that question. The Catholic Church didn’t separate from anyone. We call them “separated brethren” or “ecclesiastical communities” because they are still Christians. They have many means to salvation, but they lack the means to salvation in the fullest sense. “varying degrees of separation” does not mean hierarchy. If one church is as good as another, that would be indifferentism which can lead to a loss of faith.

“As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in Me” (John 15:4). The sustenance must come from the root and obviously without sustenance it must wither away. Just because we give a name to the cut off branch doesn’t give it life. What is the ‘sense of fullness’ if it doesn’t mean life itself; a partially living thing; a Frankenstein accumulation of dead body parts?

JoeT

Catholics acknowledge “One Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Ephesians 4:5] and we acknowledge, “He that is not with me (Christ), is against me (Christ); and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.” When we scatter things they tend toward chaos. Then, how can one be of chaos ‘in varying degrees’? “What profit for it is the form [of the vine], if it does not live from the root?" [Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, 9, c. Augustine]. When we say a thing is not alive, we mean it is dead, not half dead, not dead of a degree, just ‘dead’ (without recourse to life).

Alternatively, to have varying degrees of the fullness of truth we must also say there are multiple ‘bodies of Christ’. From which we would understand that there are multiple truths (as each teach their own ‘truth’). As these truths tend to chaos, each of the ‘multiple Christs’ would teach contradicting truths; an absurdity which can’t stand.

If I go into battle with a friend and report back that my friend no longer lives the commander carries him on the roles of the dead, not the roles of the half dead. The designation of ‘dead’ doesn’t mean he is no longer a friend, I don’t hate him for going on the roles of the dead, I don’t tell him he isn’t dead, rather I pray for him. As cruel as it might seem, there is one thing certain about life and death, you can either be alive or you can be dead, there is no between (except in zombie movies of course).

Contending with the notion of ‘varying degrees of truth’, then we can say “Church” does not teach Devin truth. Tell me, is ‘Truth’ ever less than ‘full’? Did Christ commission His Church to teach ‘less than fullness”? Is the Catholic Church not a Divine organ for teaching a Divine Truth? Isn’t it that something not of the fullness of truth an un-truth, which here is being made equal to Truth? I’m afraid these conclusion would lead us to the concept of “one Church is as good as another;” is this your contention?

JoeT

to make that easy

Enter the Catechism at this paragraph

That does make it easy, thank you.

And? You understand the Catechism to say what? Your opinions usually flow like greased lightening, what’s happened, have you been grounded?

JoeT

1ke made the following recommendation to your opening question #1

Originally Posted by 1ke forums.catholic.com/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I would encourage you to read the entire catechism section on the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

You thanked 1ke for that suggestion. All I did for ease, was gave the link to that section of the CCC Enter the Catechism at this paragraph. That’s all that was meant.

Where did THAT come from?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.