I know Bryan’s thinking well enough to know that he would not substantially disagree with what I said, though he may prefer to have put this or that point differently. Rather, I believe you’re misinterpreting him.

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.

I would like to ask a question concerning an issue directly related to Bryan’s article: an issue which began to emerge early in this thread, but trailed off amidst the “gnostic” interchange. I am a Catholic in full agreement with most of what Brayn has written in the lead article (excellent by the way). I simply remain confused about Bryan’s comments surrounding the “invisible” church paradigm and its relation to ecclesial Docetism. To clarify my question, I will show part of Bryan’s article; followed by a comment by Dr. Liccione (whose posts I great enjoy); followed by a response from Ralph, a non-catholic. I will sum-up my question thereafter.

From the lead article:

Likewise, and for the same reason, ecclesial Nestorianism necessarily collapses into ecclesial Docetism. Here is why: given that Christ is the Head of the Mystical Body, then treating the Mystical Body as something distinct from, even if extrinsically united to, the Catholic Church, reduces the Catholic Church to a merely human institution, just as Nestorianism reduces Jesus to a mere human being. The real Church (i.e., the one that Christ founded), given ecclesial Nestorianism, is the invisible Church that may or may not be in some way related to the Catholic Church. That is ecclesial Docetism.26 The real Church, for Hodge, is the inward or invisible Church; there is no “visible Church” per se, nor do the promises of Christ apply to it. There are many visible churches, but no universal visible Church

several posts into the thread Dr. Liccione said:

Second, the Catholic Church teaches that the Church is both spiritual and visible. The Church not only contains the blessed in heaven or the “Church Triumphant”, which is not as yet visible; there are also people who can be salvifically joined to her without anybody but God knowing as much

Then Ralph responded to Dr. Liccione:

I think you would admit that not all baptized Roman Catholics are (now, or will be) a part of Christ’ eternal Church. Whether or not one says some lose their place in the Church—or they never really had it—is not the point, the point is, the present-day organization—no matter how pure, holy, or well taught—is not synonymous to the eventual complete Church Triumphant. This is the distinction we classical Protestants make, that the human organization of the visible Church—while it overlaps, and contains the invisible Church, is not the same as that eternal Church Triumphant. To say that is not to be Gnostic, or to spiritualize things into non-reality—its simply to be realistic. Your, and the Roman Church’s, admittance that many are a part of the Church who don’t know they are (even though the admittance of Jews, pagans, (and agnostics or atheists?) would seem to make Rome officially Universalist now) seems very much like a tacit understanding of the present day reality of an invisible Church…crossing denominational lines.

I am trying to gain clarity in my own Catholic thinking. Bryan seems to be saying (and I may have this very wrong), that to include any sort of “invisibile” church conception within the Catholic definition of “The Church” amounts to ecclesial Docestim. I had the impression that he was explicitly defining the Catholic Church as being strictly “visible” in its “this-world” reality. My impression may be quite wrong.

Dr. Liccione stated that Catholicism supports an understanding of the Church which is both “spiritual and visible” since it must include not only the historically visible Church; but also the Church in heaven – the Church Triumphant. Since one cannot physically “see” the Chuch Triumphant, I wondered if Dr. Liccione’s comment “spiritual and visible” might equally be rendered “invisible and visible”. Again, my interpretation of Dr. Liccione’s statment may be wrong.

Ralph then added another dimension to the puzzle by stating (what I think is an obvious fact) that not every member of the “visible” Catholic Church is currently in a state of grace, nor is it likely that every person who dies a “visible” Catholic will attain to the Church Triumphant.

Finally, Vatican II seems clear that a person found outside the “visible” structure of the Catholic Church, might, nonetheless, be in a state of grace (known only to God). Potentially such a one might die in such state; hence achieving attainment to the Chruch Triumphant.

So, there are:
1.) persons in heaven who are part of the Church Tiumphant (by definition, invisible to us)
2.) persons inside the “visible” Church; but NOT in a state of grace (an ontological reality which is, again, invisible to us)
3.) persons outside the “visible” Chruch, but who ARE in a state of grace (again a condition not visible)

It would seem then, that the Catholic understanding of “The Church” as established by Christ MUST be elastic enough to coherently explain/integrate two realities: a.) the space-time reality of the “visible” Catholic Church and b.) the ontological reality of persons inside/outside the “visible” Church who are either out/in a state of grace. Thus, when we say that Christ established the Catholic Church; how exactly does the term “Church” relate to these two realities visible/invisible (or if you prefer historical/ontological)? Or does the Catholic Church propose that the word “Church” (as established by Christ) only refer to the “visible” historical Catholic Church; but recommend use of a different term to refer to all those currently (whether in heavan or on earth) in a state of ontological union with Christ? Lastly, how does the term “mystical body of Christ” relate to either or both of these dimensions? It seems to me that clarity among Catholics on this issue is crucial when contending with the “invisible” church paradigm defended within Protestantism.

I would be most grateful for your insights, as well as any recommendations for study on this issue.

Pax et Bonum,

-Ray

Mariology is a difficult topic even for those who hold the Church fathers as authoritative. For those who do not hold it authoritative, it’s like discussing whether beef or chicken is better with a vegetarian. It’s simply not on the playing field at this point. If you want to have a real discussion, we need to start over. This link shows our ‘lead articles’ where we have laid out a careful case (or the beginning thereof) for the Catholic Church. You’ll notice that we plan to address Mariology, and there’s a reason it’s far down the list. We need to agree on the basics first.

I see that Bryan suggested a wrap up in #176 and for good reason. I’m seconding that motion. We would love to continue this dialogue, but we need to agree on the basics first.

Jordan’s stance viz-a-viz the Church Fathers is a paradigm case of ecclesial deism. That’s why he refers to the Church Fathers as “Church Babies.” I wrote about that in January of 2008 in this post (I refer to it in one of the links there). From my point of view, this stance toward the Fathers is contrary to the Fourth Commandment, as applied to our spiritual parents in the Church. Treating the Church Fathers as though they are “Church Babies” is likewise akin to David Cloud’s treatment of the Fathers as though they are “mostly heretics.” Twenty-first century Christians treating the early Church Fathers as “Church Babies” and “mostly heretics” is not too unlike Zeus binding his father Chronos, and Chronos castrating his father Uranus. As I said elsewhere regarding Cloud’s stance toward the Fathers:

At what point does one’s own disagreement with the early Church Fathers become evidence against one’s own position, rather than an indication that the early Church Fathers were “mostly heretics”? St. Justin Martyr, born around the time that the Apostle John died, describes a Catholic mass in the video below, explaining in his Apology that they had received their belief and practice from the Apostles. St. Justin’s testimony counts far more than does the testimony of a contemporary twenty-first century figure, precisely because of St. Justin’s closer proximity to the Apostles. So claiming that the early Fathers were “mostly heretics” is in that respect self-refuting. But it is forthright and correct in its recognition of the distinctively Catholic nature of the early Church Fathers.

In addition, I’ve argued that Jordan’s epistemology is fundamentally flawed, for the reasons I explained here.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

I’m not emotional about it. I just hold the Bible as an authority over church tradition, including the fathers. Jordan and Leithart deftly identify the “universals” that we find in biblical types. I call it “systematic typology.” If we practice our scales enough on the actual biblical structures, errant ideas like Mariology stick out like a sore thumb. They rub the Bible’s fur the wrong way.

I should say that an identification of biblical structure is also the reason I strongly disagree with Jordan and Leithart concerning paedobaptism, but that’s another story. That’s where they get fluffy and rely on tradition and read biblical types the wrong way! That’s where they see typological “support” for an extrabiblical practice. I have plenty of posts on this on my blog. This too rubs the Bible’s fur the wrong way. Mariology and paedobaptism get childhood and maturity round the wrong way, and I can demonstrate from the Scriptures that this is so. It is no one-off or drive-by type.

So, again, I’m not against Irenaeus, but when anyone disagrees with the Bible (doesn’t Irenaeus at one point say Jesus lived into his 40’s?), I’ll stick with the Bible every time.

Kind regards,
Mike

I pray that you had a wonderful Thanksgiving!
I too, understand the Protestant thought about the Blessed Virgin. To me she was simply “Mary” a nice Jewish girl chosen to give birth to the Savior of The World, Jesus Christ, Our Lord. After He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born in the flesh from Mary, she became just a Jewish mother who took care of Him until He could be on His way.

As you said, I believed Our Lord even showed his annoyance with her when He called her, “Woman” at the wedding in Cana.

But why would he disrepect her from His cross? In His last moments on the cross, Our Lord once again called His mother, “Woman”. He must have really wanted to show everyone that she was just a “woman” and make sure they got it correct. Just for good measure, you didn’t need to call her blessed throughout all generations because you would be Catholic and that was evil.

My heart breaks when I realize what I said without any understanding.
I’ll pray for you in this discussion tonight.

PAX,
Teri

whatever the fathers or church tradition says.

St. Irenaeus was ordained and tutored by St. Polycarp who was ordained and tutored by St. John the apostle! You distrust him but you trust guys like Leithart and Jordan? It’s impossible not to be very emotionally involved in this, but try to step back and look at the big picture. Is your position reasonable? (Prooftexts won’t help answer this question.)

I appreciate your answers.

Seeing Christ as the Law written on tablets of flesh is not inevitably Nestorianism. I believe Jesus was/is in fact more truly human than you or I. His glory was temporarily veiled. The contents of the box were both as divine and as human as the box. Jesus was the Word, Sacrament and Government man. Is there a name like “Nestorianism” I can call the error of giving Mary the obvious symbolic divinity of the Ark?

The Ark lid was a symbol of the throne of God (see Leithart http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-50-the-footstool-of-his-feet/). Adding Mary into the mix is foreign to the Bible, whatever the fathers or church tradition says.

So, yes, Mary’s journey was like the Ark’s journey, but so was every exodus throughout the OT (and my book outlines most of them). We don’t give this divinity to anyone else. Concerning typology, it should be largely systematic. By this I mean symbols contained in repeated structures, which allows us to verify the connections. I can say Judas being sent out from the last supper is both type of the coming destruction of Judah and an antitype of the scapegoat because all three events follow the structure of the seven feasts in Lev. 23. None of these Marian claims meet such a criterion. They are one-offs and drive-bys.

Your priest friend’s comment is wrong and entirely extrabiblical in its very idea, as is the idea that Mary was a new Eve. You guys need to understand the difference between a mother and a bride, and how the process of Covenant succession flows through the OT. I read the summary of that link on the church fathers concerning Mary as New Eve and the “unveiling” of the doctrine of the immaculate conception. But Mary isn’t the New Eve, the church is, so that whole construct is a very badly built house of cards. Mary is, if anything, the antitype of the Old Eve. Her Son begins a new creation, and creation comes before Eve does. Rome has this whole nutty Oedipus thing going.

On Mary and the saints as mediators of any kind, the Scripture is silent, as it is on her sinlessness and assumption (a ridiculous idea). She was a faithful woman like Hannah. The Covenant head is sinless and we are justified and sanctified in Him.

I doubt you are going to see where I’m coming from in this as you are starting with an assumption and looking for proofs. These ideas about Mary are foreign to the thinking of the OT and totally absent from the New.

I highly recommend Jordan’s three recent posts at http://biblicalhorizons.wordpress.com/

“Typological “evidences” for Mary as perpetual virgin, queen of heaven, etc. etc. I assert here that these have never been the reasons for Marian doctrines, but that they have been brought into consideration by those who are already completely convinced of those doctrines because of their traditions. As the previous discussion demonstrated, I believe, there is no Biblical warrant for the notion that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus Christ. The Bible explicitly states that Joseph did not routinely have sex with her until after her purification.”

Kind regards,
Mike

The Ark under the Old Law carried the presence of God within it. The Ark under the New Law carries the One who is God from God, light from light, true God from true God. Pope Benedict spoke beautifully of the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth as the first Eucharistic Procession!

I love what I heard a priest friend of mine once say, “Where the Ark was, God was, where Mary is, God is.”

Mary can do no other than bring Her Son. As the ancient Christian poet said, “God from His Father, Man from His Mother.”

peace.

TC
1 Cor 16:14