Guest Aluigi Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 i would agree with cmom's statement as well somewhat. there is a complex issue at work here, but when we say the mystical body of Christ, i believe it should mean the Catholic Church, that the members of the Church Militant are only explicit members of her, that baptism outside her makes one imperfectly united to her but not a full member of the Mystical Body. non-Catholics who profess the name Christian and are validly baptized should be considered more closely related to the Mystical Body of Christ, seperated but still brethren in Christ, the Mystical Body of Christ does not include them but they are on some level imperfectly connected to the Body through their baptism. I hope that makes sense. -Pax-
Guest Aluigi Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 thinkin about that statement, it sounds like double speak doesn't it? let me try to clarify what I mean. The Mystical Body of Christ includes three divisions, the Church Militant, the Church Faithful, and the Church Triumphant. Those in the Church militant are a a transforming group, people enter and leave, et cetera, it's borders are not as tightly defined as that of the people passed on from this life and secured into their eternal fate. Explicit members of the Catholic Church make up the Church Militant. People who profess to be Christians and are validly baptized have joined to follow the same trail somewhat, kinda dragged along by the Body of Christ but not really members. but if they stay inculpably ignorant until their dying day and also remain trying to do God's will through the dictates of their own conscience, thus not letting go of the Body of Christ's leg by which they are being dragged, they can be incorperated into the body at the end of their life.
popestpiusx Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 Number 1 is the correct answer. To justify #2 you would have to do quite a bit of equivocating.
Guest Aluigi Posted November 26, 2004 Posted November 26, 2004 i too voted for #1. what do you think of my explanations, specifically my last post where i attempted to clarify?
jasJis Posted November 27, 2004 Posted November 27, 2004 (edited) [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 26 2004, 05:26 PM'] Number 1 is the correct answer. To justify #2 you would have to do quite a bit of equivocating. [/quote] What's wrong with equivocating? When it comes to God, our simple answer is rarely the complete answer. To learn the Truth of Catholicism is to learn the Fullness of Truth Edited November 27, 2004 by jasJis
Catalyst Posted November 27, 2004 Posted November 27, 2004 Mother of pearl..did I not say hear and do the word so does that not imply baptism??
popestpiusx Posted November 27, 2004 Posted November 27, 2004 [quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 26 2004, 09:30 PM'] What's wrong with equivocating? When it comes to God, our simple answer is rarely the complete answer. To learn the Truth of Catholicism is to learn the Fullness of Truth [/quote] What's wrong with equivocating? It's wrong because we use the same words but not always with the same meaning. That's not the way to Truth. The answer of the Church is the complete answer and no equivocation is necessary.
cmotherofpirl Posted November 27, 2004 Posted November 27, 2004 [quote name='Catalyst' date='Nov 27 2004, 02:24 AM'] Mother of pearl..did I not say hear and do the word so does that not imply baptism?? [/quote] No hearing and doing God's word does not imply Baptism. Many people today seem to forget baptism is a requirement for entrance into God's kingdom and the possibility of salvation.
Catalyst Posted November 27, 2004 Posted November 27, 2004 yeah, but many people today don't apply the bible to their lives. Were not talking about many peoples views..were talking about Gods. Yes, we can know them, thats why we have scripture
jasJis Posted November 27, 2004 Posted November 27, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Nov 27 2004, 01:00 AM'] What's wrong with equivocating? It's wrong because we use the same words but not always with the same meaning. That's not the way to Truth. The answer of the Church is the complete answer and no equivocation is necessary. [/quote] Then you must use the COMPLETE answer of the Church. Call it equivocating, or call it a complicated answer. The question is not answered with one small sentence because it isn't the full truth and thus, gives short shrift to the Fullness of Truth that the Catholic Church provides to answer this question.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now