A good number of years ago, this postcard arrived in my home mailbox. The other side revealed that it had been sent by a local Protestant church. What do you think of when you think of Church, is the same question that Fr. Yves Congar often asked: <i>Pro quo supponit Ecclesia</i>?What does the word Church refer to? What is or, better, who are, its referent? Below Ive taken statements made in one of our threads that use the word Church. It might make an interesting experiment to determine its referent: Who is meant by the Church in the following statements?I think he overrated the importance of the Churchs ability to provide political guidance to the world.Even those who have triumphed, who now control the Church, do not seem happy with their victory.There are terms in the popes text that were known to every Catholic then: lay apostolate, Mystical Body, social teaching, etc. Forgotten now that the Church has narrowed its focus to one issue.With Vatican II, the Church made its initial attempt to respond positively to modernity.Vatican II and the events that followed collapsed the rules-based authority the Church had successfully utilized for millennia.The church and other Christian leaders still do not take responsibility for their failure in stopping or at least failing to protest the holocaust.The dilemmas the Church finds itself in, I think, have much more to do with psychology than with theology.I vigorously protest that the Vatican has to define what is the shared memory. Dogma has hurt the church more than helped it. The shared memories of the crufixion, death and resurrection has never left the church....but he kept relying on authoritarian power structures to ensure that nothing really changed for himself, certainly nothing having to do with accepting the point of view or influence of women. Writ large, that is what has happened to the Church in the last 50 years.Vatican II was a great council and did enormous good. It put life back into the church.The more I read here, the more it seems evident that the Church exists on several levels. Theres the Church of the learned, the academics. Thats well represented here. Then theres the Church of the uncomplicated and devout. I see that more elsewhere. Then theres the Church of the academic bureaucrats, the theological scholars deeply bound to the institution. Then, I suppose, there is or has been in the past the Church for everyone else, those who dont know the history and the philosophy and the theology but are content simply to read or hear a bit here and there, now and then, who are content to go to mass when its comfortable and convenient. ... I understand that everyone needs a god in his or her own image. Im just not sure it makes sense for a single church to try to please everybody. A good number of years ago, this postcard arrived in my home mailbox. The other side revealed that it had been sent by a local Protestant church. What do you think of when you think of Church, is the same question that Fr. Yves Congar often asked: Pro quo supponit Ecclesia?What does the word Church refer to? What is or, better, who are, its referent? Below Ive taken statements made in one of our threads that use the word Church. It might make an interesting experiment to determine its referent: Who is meant by the Church in the following statements?

I think he overrated the importance of the Churchs ability to provide political guidance to the world.Even those who have triumphed, who now control the Church, do not seem happy with their victory.There are terms in the popes text that were known to every Catholic then: lay apostolate, Mystical Body, social teaching, etc. Forgotten now that the Church has narrowed its focus to one issue.With Vatican II, the Church made its initial attempt to respond positively to modernity.Vatican II and the events that followed collapsed the rules-based authority the Church had successfully utilized for millennia.The church and other Christian leaders still do not take responsibility for their failure in stopping or at least failing to protest the holocaust.The dilemmas the Church finds itself in, I think, have much more to do with psychology than with theology.I vigorously protest that the Vatican has to define what is the shared memory. Dogma has hurt the church more than helped it. The shared memories of the crufixion, death and resurrection has never left the church....but he kept relying on authoritarian power structures to ensure that nothing really changed for himself, certainly nothing having to do with accepting the point of view or influence of women. Writ large, that is what has happened to the Church in the last 50 years.Vatican II was a great council and did enormous good. It put life back into the church.The more I read here, the more it seems evident that the Church exists on several levels. Theres the Church of the learned, the academics. Thats well represented here. Then theres the Church of the uncomplicated and devout. I see that more elsewhere. Then theres the Church of the academic bureaucrats, the theological scholars deeply bound to the institution. Then, I suppose, there is or has been in the past the Church for everyone else, those who dont know the history and the philosophy and the theology but are content simply to read or hear a bit here and there, now and then, who are content to go to mass when its comfortable and convenient. ... I understand that everyone needs a god in his or her own image. Im just not sure it makes sense for a single church to try to please everybody.