Thanks for considering my comments.

The Chair of Peter comprehends the universal and particular in the subsistence of the church. Everything you wrote supposes elements and people who are in full communion with the indispensable part of the the visible church. Full visible communion is reduced to union with the Pope. Everyone, from the laity to the the bishops, is ultimately dispensable and separable from the subsistence of the catholic church. Unless you think every legitimate pope was elect and destined for glory, then the possibility of Antichrist occupying the seat is something unavoidable. Remember that the Pope can be foreknown to evil and still be Pope.

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH:

THIRD QUESTION
Why was the expression “subsists in” adopted instead of the simple word “is”?

RESPONSE
The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.

I was trying to show the extreme case based on these words. Her structure here is the specific visible aspect. Subsistence is dealing not with people, but with the fullness of all the elements instituted.

Thanks,
Eric

Thanks for the note.

Actually, I don’t believe you have accurately depicted the Catholic doctrine of the Church.

The Second Vatican Council made very clear that the essence of the Church is not one man, one office, or one order within the Church. It is the whole people of God, united to Christ their head. Furthermore, the Church exists – in her lay faithful as well as clergy – to be a sign and sacrament of salvation to the whole human race. We have the promise of God that he will not allow his elect to fall away and that means that the visible unity of the Church – not only in Peter – the seat of that unity – but also in the faithful united to him – will not fall away.

Lumen Gentium:

“The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) Through it, the people of God adheres unwaveringly to the faith given once and for all to the saints,(113) penetrates it more deeply with right thinking, and applies it more fully in its life.”

-David

I understand you intended to be tongue in cheek with the need for Antichrist, but it turns out to be a real problem for Catholics in light of belief and development. Who or what is the Antichrist ? The Catholic answer remains underdeveloped and it may be a sign of neglect. How can such an enemy of the Church remain so obscure and unidentified ?

Let us look closely at the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. Is the successor of Peter the indispensable part of the Catholic Church ? Does the Church of Christ subsist in the Pope alone ? Theoretically, the Catholic Church could endure every rupture, separation and wound against its substance. Except for the Pope, every individual and element of the Catholic Church may decline from full communion simultaneously. Reducing further, even invisible graces operating on the Pope’s soul may not be received with cooperation. Interior faith, hope and charity are equally dispensable. We are left with the Pope possessing the full power of the office and baptismal character. This is the indispensable center of visible unity in the Catholic Church.

I am amazed at how this in no way eliminates the possibility of the Antichrist (assuming he is a man) becoming the Pope. The CCC #675 & 676 describes a situation compatible with the Papacy and any Devil’s advocate would encourage it.

Thanks,
Eric

Thanks for writing. As Catholics, we are perfectly willing to engage with anyone on the Primitive Church. One point of this post was to point out that well-read Protestants now recognize that they cannot win on this issue. The primitive church is not with them.

Have you read J.N.D. Kelly’s book Early Christian Doctrine? Kelly is an Anglican, and thus not biased in favor of the Catholic position, yet his book is, I think, a fairly solid refutation of the idea that the Primitive church looked anything like Protestantism. I would also recommend that you poke around on CTC, as we have many articles on the early Church. Also – volume 1 of Pelikan’s History of Christian Doctrine, is good. And, of course, Newman’s Essay on the Development of Doctrine.

God Bless,

David

My question is how do you respond to soemone who says just because the Protestants are rejecting the Primitive church as Catholics do does not invalidate the argument for a Primitive church?

I have a friend whose answer is to abandon both reformation Christianityand Catholcism and to embrace Primitivism.

He argues there was a transformation of the Original Church into the Catholic Church, into the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodox Catholic Church, and into Protestant Churches and into thousands of other denominations, many of them unrecognizable.

I am at a loss to answer him on this.

Is there anything good out there that delves into the Primitive church theory?