In an earlier blog I did a book review on “What is the Church” by Andre De Bovis, which is actually Volume 48 of the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, copyright 1961 by Hawthorn Books, Inc. New York, which was basically the information on the dust cover. That book discusses among other things the invisible church that some other sects that follow the Christian philosophy cite as a justification of them considering themselves a part of Christ’s Church. But Christ’s church is not just a bunch of followers following a philosophy but the fulfilment of “The Law” and the words of the prophets which together formed the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion was transformed by the long-awaited messiahs of the Jewish religion (who Catholics believe is Jesus Christ) to the Catholic religion – the fulfilment of the Jewish religion.
In the Jewish religion, the priest were selected from the tribe of Levi, a Levite, but the high priests were always decedent of the line of Aaron the Levite. In the Old Testament, the natural law was used to select the priest, including the high priests, all decedent of Levi. In the New Testament the priests are selected by supernatural law, so that all men of merit, including gentiles (that is non-Jews), could be chosen by the apostles (we know this, that the apostles could choose evidently from any tribe etc. based on merit, from Acts 1:21-26 where the apostles chose Matthias to replace Judas). This does not include the high priest which was, is and eternally will be Jesus Christ, who offered the one efficacious sacrifice of himself as the eternal High Priest and is constantly at the actual right hand of God to continually interceding for the people of God, their conduit, as the God-Man, directly to God.
It is quite shocking to me how protestants can close their eyes to the fact that during over a millennia before the arrival of Jesus Christ, there was a formal ritualistic Jewish religion, that awaited its Messiah, yet when that Messiah – Jesus Christ, eventually arrived in history, it was His wish that God, who The Messiah was, the second person of the blessed Trinity, that He not be worshiped in a formalized ritualistic type religion of the same type that had existed over one thousand years before Him. How Protestants can honestly think that just following the book that was the results of councils of the formalized ritualistic type religion which up until their time, complete with a defined hierarchy, it was assumed for a millennia and a half the Messiah had started – Roman Catholicism, until the time of Martin Luthur, was all God wanted, since perfection was the standard (Matthew 5:48) and most people, at a minimum 80%, were illiterate (some estimate as many as 95% of the people at that time were illiterate) at the time of Christ, to include most of the original 11 or 12 (if you include Matthias as a replacement for Judas).
If Martin Luther had been an especially holy man, I can see how many might follow him, but he wasn’t, from all I have read and which anyone willing to take the time to read up on him can see. He orchestrated his break from the Catholic Church apparently because he thought, man was fundamentally bad, and an all-powerful God could not offer a solution which could fix man’s fundamental badness. He evidently did not believe in the doctrine of original sin, where Catholics believe that man was once good but broke that goodness, that life of God that is within us called sanctifying grace, through disobeying the one law God originally gave man and eating of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil. When Christ came, He brought that sanctifying grace, that life of God with him, and gave man the power through the sacrament of baptism to restore that sanctifying grace, and to restore once more that goodness in man. In addition, He left priest to be able to preform the sacrament of penance if man should fall again into mortal sin as our first parents did, and return that sanctifying grace, that life of God to him.
Martin Luther, from what I have read, thought man was incorrigible. Man was manure and could only be covered up in God’s sight like snow over manure. He had given in to despair. Nothing is beyond God’s power and he would not create a creature that could not achieve the end He had created it for, that is, just make it possible to “look” like a creature, His crowning creation, had achieved its end. If his crowning creation was man created to be a reasoning being, had used his or her will to try to achieve its end (that end being heaven) it would be possible for him or her to achieve that end (as the pantheon of great saints attest to). Christ dying on the cross came to repair any man that was baptized and through his death on the cross. Through this Christ also won for man the possibility of redemption again through his church and Christ’s priest and successors to the apostles (the bishops), should He fall again to sin as did his first parents with original sin, in the sacrament of confession (John 20:23). Thought many Catholics think some penances for confession are too light, just as many criminals from big cities in this year 2023 in the United States are let off easy, it’s the judges that have the authority to meet out punishment and Jesus Christ (Matthew 29:18-20) having all power in heaven and in earth gave the apostles the authority to judge and forgive sins (once again John 20:23).
God would be evil if He required people to be perfect, to enjoy eternal happiness as opposed to eternal suffering, and gave most of them no way of knowing what that way of perfection was since most could not read. But Christ did not say: write a book with the old law and the new law and make sure everyone reads it to go to heaven, but even in the King James Version of the bible, Jesus was translated to say in Matthew 28:19 “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost . . .” To teach all nations, it would be absurd to think that Jesus Christ did not mean to perfect the Jewish religion to spread the path to heaven and teach it to the illiterate and allow the literate and learned to study and clarify the meaning of His words as a part of His religion, His Church. I think it would also be absurd for one to think that He would not make it apostolic to pass on the meaning clearly so as perfection could be more assured in adherents, since it was passed in an unbroken line from Jesus Christ to all succeeding generations through a purpose-built hierarchy.
Though I do not have a degree in Theology, it makes sense to me that a body, which the church is considered in saint Paul’s writings, have specialized parts to build new cells or get new citizen of heaven or to have processes (the sacraments) to repair the cells and to feed the cells to make them stronger and healthier (the mass). These rituals, to be done properly, to reflect externally the processes that they represent spiritually, require, in my opinion both a structured religion and a dedicated cadre (deacons priests and bishops) to ensure its rigorous adherents in perpetuity.
The following excerpt from the book “What is the Church?” describes a critical antecedent concept and the exact answer to this question “What is the Church?” from the book as well as what empowers the transformation of the church of the old law to the church of the new law. One must read the rest of the book to find the authority, the mission and the link to the old law religion that the current church/religion has as reflected through the following antecedent plus answer:
“ What is the “body of Christ” which the author [Saint Paul] of these epistles [namely Colossians, Ephesians, Romans and 1 Corinthians] has in mind? It is the assembly of believers gathered together in the same faith in the name of the Lord Jesus. The word “Church” is not applied here merely to the local community a Ephesus, Colossae or Corinth, it is applied to “the Church of God,” that is, the Church universal wherever it may be, the Church of which the Ephesus, Colossae and Corinth community are cells. It is the universal Church of which Christ is the Head, says in the same epistle to the Ephesians. It is this Church which is the Body of Christ, the church which is found everywhere (cf. 1 Cor. 12: 28), even though it only exists in the its local communities (there are differences of opinion on this point among Catholic exegetes, but there is no need to go into the details of this controversy).”
There is a further point of importance. In St. Paul’s letters, a well as the Gospel of John, the Apocalypse and a couple of Old Testament books, there is support for what I think is the more precise definition of the church as the bride of Christ, thereby also part of His body since “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:5). This book clarifies it and supports it as follows:
“ There is sacrificial love. Jesus Christ gives himself for his Church, even unto death and the death of the cross. St. Paul understood this perfectly when he wrote: “Christ shewed love to the Church when he gave himself up on its behalf. He would sanctify it” (Ephes. 5:25-26). Our Lord loved and cherished his Church more than the best of bridegrooms loves and cherishes his bride. The Apostle continues: “A man . . . keeps (his own flesh and blood) fed and warm.” He is referring here to the love of the husband for his wife, and he adds: “and so it is with Christ and his Church” (Ephes. 5:29). Thus Paul returned to the image which God had used in the Old Testament to express his love for the chosen people. Osee has some admirable words on the subject (Osee 2; cf, Ezech. 16). But now, under the New Covenant and for its sake, charity rides to its highest point which is toral sacrifice. “This is the greatest love a man can show, that he should lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). When history comes to its end, Christ will take to himself the Church which he has bought at the price of his own blood. Then she will be fair as a bride adorned for her husband (Apoc. 21: 3 and 9). The Church, the fruit of sacrificial love, is the Bride of Christ.”
The question of the authority of the Church has always been questioned by the protestants and indeed part of the reason for their separation is the objection of Martin Luther to the authority of the papacy. But in light of the recent seeming confusion at the top of the church hierarchy we must remember we are following Christ, always, and when the pope or any other church representative, part of the hierarchy or cleric of any kind clearly drifts away from Christ’s precepts/example we cannot follow him. We can only follow him in those things in which his authority extends. If the pope says we should tend toward purchasing “greener” vehicles to help save the planet, though this may seem a little “worldly” it is not counter to anything Christ said. Now, on the other hand if the pope implies that “spilling your seed” and by extension contraception is okay, as we can see from Onan (Genesis 38:7-10) it is not. Similarly, with divorce and remarriage and attempt to have children with the new wife, even if the pope says this is okay, due to guidance from both the Old Testament (Mal. 2:14-16) and the New Testament (Matt. 19:3-9), it is not okay because it is against both God the Father/Holy Ghost and God the Sons guidance. This, I think, is clearly brought out in the following quote from the book “What is the Church?”:
“ The Church’s responsibility and her hierarchy are functions which are signs of Christ. This is why the essential degrees of the hierarchy are functions which are signs of Christ. This is why the essential degrees of the hierarchy necessarily involve the three powers of order, teaching and jurisdiction. The episcopal body is the image of Jesus as Head, just as Jesus I the image of God.
There can be no doubt that Paul knew this since he wrote the sentence “it is Christ who speaks through me” (2 Cor. 13:3). He considered these few words too evident to need justification or explanation. For him, the doctors and leaders of the Church continue Christ, the signify the Head and mediate his action. St. Augustine also expressed the profound meaning of the pastoral function and the reason for its existence and authority when he declared that the pastors of the Church are only so in and through the one Pastor.
From this standpoint, the meaning of the pontifical primacy becomes immediately evident. The primacy is not merely a supreme authority owing its existence to the fact that experience has shown the need for a “supreme court.” The primacy is to be the sign of Jesus Christ, Head of the Church. This is the sense contained in the text of Scripture which proclaims that Christ is the Church’s one foundation, the corner-stone on which the whole edifice depends (1 Cor. 3:11; Ephes. 2:20; 1 Peter 2:4). Yet Peter is the Church’s foundation, the rock which guarantees its permanence (Matt. 16:18). It is abundantly clear that Peter cannot take the place of Jesus Christ. He must therefore be the sign and instrument of Jesus Christ, Ruler, Doctor, Sanctifier.
Catholic thought has understood this quite spontaneously. It calls the pope “the Vicar of Christ.” This same Christian sense very quickly realized that the function of superiors is to prolong, to make available and to apply the only authority existing in the Church, that of the Son of God. Hence the Christian sees his superiors as “the representatives of Christ” at different levels, of course, according to the circumstances and responsibilities involved.
It follows that authority in the Church is always subordinate to the Church’s mission which is to sanctify the people of God, to preserve it as the Body of Christ, to be the “guardian of our souls,” like Christ himself (1Peter 2:25). In this respect, jurisdiction and magisterium are in the service of the power of order.”
This in my opinion is a great book for the laymen and for any protestant to read with respect to both questions on the powers of the papacy from a high level, and to show that his power and influence is not absolute or inordinate. It also gives the argument for the actual meaning of Christ with regard to the concept of “church” as well as the need for an apostolic, visible, unified, and universal (world wide) church to impose influence as in WWII when she secretly sheltered as many Jews as she could, when popes negotiated with invaders to save cities (and arguably civilizations), when the church built a system of universities or when the Church built systems of hospitals. All lay persons must remember this and when there is a clear conflict with what Christ said, meant and would prefer and what a deacon/priest/bishop/pope might say, mean or prefer, we are bound, in order not to lose our immortal souls, to follow Christ. Having a visible center or head, also shows that to have unified dogma and a focused fight against the powers of evil we require (as Clausewitz’s book On War shows the theoretical necessity for when fighting) “unity of command.” This is also a characteristic of a “body,” it must have one brain controlling everything to work properly. Above, in the quote, “the one Pastor” is of course Jesus Christ, through whom the world was created (John 1:1-10) and to whom all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 26:18-20) was given.
This final quote gives some insight into how a church filled with sinners, and indeed, based own Christ’s on words (Luke 5:31-32), built to be composed of sinners could be holy (you must read the book to get a more complete and dare I say more satisfying explanation):
“ Let there be no misunderstanding on this point: we are not concerned here with holiness in the moral sense, that is, with the rejection of sin. We are concerned with holiness in a physical sense, and its appropriate name is “holiness by consecration.” The following comparison will help us to grasp the meaning of the phrase. The blessing given to objects used for worship effects no change in the value of the matter which they are composed, gold, silver, tin or wood. But we say that they are “holy,” and not without reason. They cease to be like other objects. They are distinguished from these by the use to which they are put. They become holy because of the purpose for which thy are used, namely to honor and praise the divine Majesty through the agency of men. No doubt holiness in this sense is of a very lowly kind, it is the holiness of things, of objects. The worth of the holy picture or the chalice does not lie so much in themselves as in their use for public worship and in the religious intention of the man who consecrates them. And these seem to belong to these objects and to exist in them. The same is true of the Church. The bond by which the Church is consecrated to Christ has its origin in our Lord. He gradually forged it and finally established it during his life on earth. . . .
Yet holiness works a still deeper transfiguration in our spiritual being. It can so transfigure it that it kindles in it a flame of infinite charity. In the prayer before his arrest, our lord asked that the Church should posses that holiness which is union and charity. It is so transcendent, so divine, that it can only be compared to the union of the Father and the Son in the Blessed Trinity: “that they may all be one. Father . . . as thou art in me, and I in thee” (John 17:21-23; 17:11). Further, the holiness of union between men is achieved not apart from and, as it were, at a distance from, but within God himself: “that they too may be one in us.” Our Lord again asked, “that while thou art in me, I may be in them, and so they may be perfectly made one” (John 17:21-23). Thus the Holiness of the Church, her most profoundly Christian holiness, exists in and by that unifying Love which God himself is. It is a participation in divine Love. And this is precisely what Christ asked for in his final petition: that the love thou hast bestowed upon me may dwell in them” (John 17:26). . . .
But we cannot possibly omit the problem. Christ himself showed far too clearly that visible holiness is of the nature of the Church for it to be possible to pretend to ignore it. “It was not you that chose me,” he said to his apostles, “it was I that chose you. The task I have appointed you is to go out and bear fruit, fruit which will endure” (John 15:16). Can this fruit be hidden? This could not possibly be, for Christ elsewhere declares that the good fruit makes known the good tree (Matt. 17:17-20). Moreover, our Lord made his teaching clearer still when He spoke of charity: “The mark by which all men will know you for my disciples will be the love you bear one another” (John 13:35). Finally, in the prayer that followed the Last Supper, Christ asked that the holy union between the members of the Church should be a sign to the world of the truth of his mission: “that they too may be one in us . . . so that the world may come to believe that it is thou who hast sent me” (John17:21; John 17:23).”
From an earlier quote, we can understand holiness is imparted by Christ to his Church through and by his apostles and their successors. The Church is apostolic. The apostolicity is what takes the place of the natural law used in the Old Testament, the old law of the Jews. In the Old Testament, you had to be born of a Jewish mother and if you were male had to have the “sacrament” of circumcision performed on you to be a “Jew” one of God’s chosen people. To become a one of the chosen people of the new covenant, in the New Testament, you have to have the sacrament of baptism performed on you whether you are a male or a female (Gal. 3:28). Similarly, if you were to be a priest in the old law (Old Testament) you had to be born into the line of Levi and to be the high priest you had to be born in the line of Aaron the Levi, once again based on the natural law, selected through your parentage as God specified. In the New Testament you are selected by the apostles and their successors to be a priest and the only High Priest, who after rising from the dead, Jesus Christ, sits at the right hand of the Father to forever intercede (be the intermediary) for the apostles – bishops (past and present) his priests and the lay people of the His Church, the new chosen people of God. Because of the new supernatural law-based selection (as opposed to the old natural law selection) either Jews or Gentiles, both being equal can be selected as the apostles, priests and people of the new covenant.
Just as some of the grapes of a particular plant can have mold or be partially eaten by birds, but still be considered a good plant with good fruit, the Church with a few bad grapes can still be considered holy. Also, the hundreds of saints through the ages speak to the Catholic Church’s holiness. Few if any in the other Christian denominations can or are recognized as saints or go through the rigorous vetting the Church maintained all the way up to the late 20th Century when for apparently political reasons watered down the vetting process, to help push the modernist agenda. Once again, the book is “What is the Church” by Andre De Bovis, which is actually Volume 48 of the Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism, copyright 1961 by Hawthorn Books, Inc. New York.
Traditional Thomistic Catholic 