Christian Forums

Quote...that is, unless you understand the church to be referring to something other than the people who are the "called-out"... the saved in Christ.

I wouldn't say it's something other.

But I would say it's something more.   It is both a communion and a community -  more than the sum of its parts.

Quote

Quote...that is, unless you understand the church to be referring to something other than the people who are the "called-out"... the saved in Christ.

I wouldn't say it's something other.

But I would say it's something more.   It is both a communion and a community -  more than the sum of its parts.[/color]

And, I definitely don't disagree with that.  It's the sanctified body of Christ... a profound significance that individual Christians must never forget that they are members of.

QuoteDo we really believe that we have "Christ's command to dismember his own body?"

I just got done reading the First Things article. Some hard things there.[/color]

It seems to me that corrupt leadership who refuse to repent and change, or a controlling faction among the members, have for all practical purposes, already split a church where such behavior is going on. The leaving group hasn't in my mind "dismembered the body," since that church was never truly one body in the first place. The offended/persecuted group staying wouldn't be true unity, it would just be them sticking around in order to maintain the appearance of unity, which in my view would be a sham unity if there ever was one.

Pax.

Lee,  I didn't really expect you to see it any other way.

But this is basically a reactionary behavior-  you let others determine what you do by their actions.

QuoteThe history of the Council of Nice has been so often written by so many brilliant historians, from the time of its sitting down to to-day, that any historical notice of the causes leading to its assembling, or account of its proceedings, seems quite unnecessary. The editor, however, ventures to call the attention of the reader to the fact that in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect—to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others? When the time came, in the Fourth Council, to examine the Tome of Pope St. Leo, the question was not whether it could be proved to the satisfaction of the assembled fathers from Holy Scripture, but whether it was the traditional faith of the Church. It was not the doctrine of Leo in the fifth century, but the doctrine of Peter in the first, and of the Church since then, that they desired to believe and to teach, and so, when they had studied the Tome, they cried out:

"This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles!...Peter hath thus spoken by Leo! The Apostles thus taught! Cyril thus taught!

Quote

QuoteNot sure I quite understand your point.  Mind helping me with understanding what "over-spiritualize" means and why that is troubling?  Thanks.

By "over-spiritualize"  I mean that some people focus so extensively on what they think is "spiritual" that they become blinded to the very real spiritual (sorry, can't think of a better word) significance of the physical world and our physical existence.    That ultimately takes our mind away from the reality and importance of Christ's incarnation.[/color]

Thanks for the explanation.  But, with respect, Bog, I still don't understand what you're saying.  Especially when you suggest I and others of my ilk are doing it - it being over-spiritualizing.   :headscratch:

I can tell you, I don't negate the physical.  Man, I've lived it and see its existence, if you know what I mean.

Criterion of Truth

One of the first and most important problems within ecumenism is by what means truth claims will be judged. For the simple fact of the matter is that irreconcilable contradictions in dogma among Christian groups are rife. Is baptism a sacrament and necessary for salvation, or is it merely a symbol without any salvific effect? Are the elements of the Lord's Supper really the Body and Blood of our Lord, or are they merely elements that have been assigned by Christians a certain metaphorical meaning? Is the Orthodox Church the one true visible Church Christ founded, or is the Roman Catholic Church that Church? Is Church unity necessarily visible, or is Church unity really only an invisible spiritual reality?

I've painted these in starker terms than is perhaps necessary, but not, I think, illegitimately. For while it is true that one can hold both that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood of the Lord and that the Church, through Christ's command, has, indeed, assigned metaphorical meaning to these elements, still one cannot hold that the elements have only metaphorical meaning and yet somehow are also metaphysically and really identified as Christ's Body and Blood. And while one may certainly affirm both that the Orthodox (or Catholic) Church is the one, true, visible Body of Christ and the invisible and spiritual reality of Church unity, still one cannot hold that Church unity is only or even primarily invisible and that any one particular Christian group is Christ's true Church. And so it goes.

But how does one otherwise adjudicate these fundamental and irresoluble contradictions? It can be done only by agreement on a single criterion or a definitive set of criteria. And it is just here that ecumenism fails, for of itself it cannot offer any such criterion.

What, after all, could it offer? Little else but either confusion or coercion. Either the Holy Spirit contradicts himself, or agreement must be enforced by political means. For it cannot be that the Holy Spirit has led one group of believers to one dogma and another group to another dogma which utterly contradicts the first. And if Church unity is invisible and spiritual, then the visible, fleshly unity among believers can be little more than politics and contractual arrangements. Either dogma matters or institutional conformity matters. But if dogma does not matter, what use institutional conformity? And how does one discriminate among dogma so as to know which is more important than another? What fellowship does one really have if groups cannot even agree on the place of baptism and the realities of the Lord's Supper? If we can't agree on how one becomes a Christian, nor on whether or not the Lord's Supper is the central act of God among his worshipping Body, then what, really, do we have? In the end, if all we have is respect and tolerance, what sort of unity is that? And what does it say about that sort of unity that we can have the exact same unity with non-Christian religions?

No, either we have an agreement on a single criterion, or we merely enforce political cohesion.

However, let us be clear here what is meant by "agreement on a single criterion.

QuoteLee,  I didn't really expect you to see it any other way.

But this is basically a reactionary behavior-  you let others determine what you do by their actions.

How is my opinion "reactionary"? If there's that kind of unresolved tension can that church really claim to be united and of one mind? Staying together just to stay together isn't substantive unity-it's just a bunch o' people with nothing else in common continuing to hang together. But what's the point?

You or Skip made a similar criticism about the people at the March for Jesus, that it was just a bunch o' people at a march and that it was only a "sham unity." Well, a church in which one group of persecuted members stuck it out merely to maintain a physical, visible unity in my mind is a "sham unity."

Could a church in that type of situation have any kind of successful ministry or outreach program? One group-probably both groups-would likely not be experiencing any kind of substantial spiritual growth under such a scenario.

I just can't see any real substantive spiritual benefit to any one in a scenario like this.

I suspect Paul and the other NT authors didn't say anything about members withdrawing themselves from a corrupt leadership because the members of the churches they were writing to were mostly still very immature in the faith and ill equipped to effectively handle situations like that-apparently the leadership in these churches wasn't doing a very good job because Peter, Paul, Jude, John, etc. had to write to these churches personally to straighten the messes out. Had Peter, Paul, etc. been writing to churches that were older and more mature in the faith, perhaps the situations would've been different.

What am I missing here?

Pax.[/color]

QuoteI suspect Paul and the other NT authors didn't say anything about members withdrawing themselves from a corrupt leadership because the members of the churches they were writing to were mostly still very immature in the faith and ill equipped to effectively handle situations like that-apparently the leadership in these churches wasn't doing a very good job because Peter, Paul, Jude, John, etc. had to write to these churches personally to straighten the messes out. Had Peter, Paul, etc. been writing to churches that were older and more mature in the faith, perhaps the situations would've been different.

So it's different now because we're so much more mature nowadays.    I'm glad to know that.

I say your thinking is reactionary because you seem to let the actions of others determine what you do -  and then you blame others for your actions.   "They started it!"     That's reactionism.

Your statement that a church in which a group of persecuted members stuck it out is "sham unity"  really distresses me.
If that's true,  then what you are saying is that unity depends upon a continuous succession of perfect leaders, and only perfect members.     Because without both perfect leaders and perfect members,  there will alway be members who perceive themselves as oppressed for one reason or another, either rightly or wrongly.      In short,  if what you say is true,  if people can't endure persecution or oppression or suffering for the sake of unity,  if the very fact of their persecution or oppression eliminates unity -  then there's not going to be any unity at all.

This from tidbit's link:

July 13, 2005
Ecumenism I
[Please note: The following are personal musings and not to be construed as *the* Orthodox understanding. If anything here contradicts the received teaching and way of life of the (Orthodox) Church, please correct me. As always: check with your priest or spiritual father.]

Wikipedia has a helpful article on Christian ecumenism.

Because the meanings of "Christianity" are diverse, the description of what is meant by "Christian ecumenism" can take any of several directions.
On the one hand, ecumenism is "interfaith dialogue" between representatives of diverse faiths, not necessarily with the intention of reconciling the professors of other faiths into full, organic unity with one another but simply to promote better relations. With some Christian perspectives on ecumenism, there is no other principle of ecumenism than this. They aim only toward the promotion of toleration, mutual respect and cooperation, whether between Christian churches and denominations, or between Christianity and other faiths. Thus, the World Council of Churches is an instrument in both, the Ecumenical Movement and the Interfaith Movement. However, this is not the case for all Christian ecumenical initiatives; and it would be difficult if not impossible to discuss them together, when much of the Christian world makes a definite difference between the two ideas. Therefore, readers are referred to the thorough discussion of ecumenism in the sense of the promotion of mutual appreciation and improvement between diverse religions, under the entry on religious pluralism.

On the other hand, ecumenism means the aim to reconcile all who profess Christian faith, into a single, visible organization, for example, through union with the Roman Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church. Ecumenism in this sense focuses on the special problem of the relationship between Christian denominations, where Christianity is dogmatically defined.


This distinction between the two primary understandings of ecumenism (Protestant and Orthodox/Roman Catholic) is extremely important. Protestants find the Orthodox insistence on being the one, true, visible Church tiresome. But that is because Protestants come at the issue of ecumenism from a completely different ecclesiology from Orthodoxy.

Although I readily concede the following to be somewhat superficial, generally, I think it correct to describe Roman Catholic ecclesiology as "one over many

Quote

QuoteI suspect Paul and the other NT authors didn't say anything about members withdrawing themselves from a corrupt leadership because the members of the churches they were writing to were mostly still very immature in the faith and ill equipped to effectively handle situations like that-apparently the leadership in these churches wasn't doing a very good job because Peter, Paul, Jude, John, etc. had to write to these churches personally to straighten the messes out. Had Peter, Paul, etc. been writing to churches that were older and more mature in the faith, perhaps the situations would've been different.

So it's different now because we're so much more mature nowadays.    I'm glad to know that.

I say your thinking is reactionary because you seem to let the actions of others determine what you do -  and then you blame others for your actions.   "They started it!"     That's reactionism.

Your statement that a church in which a group of persecuted members stuck it out is "sham unity"  really distresses me.
If that's true,  then what you are saying is that unity depends upon a continuous succession of perfect leaders, and only perfect members.     Because without both perfect leaders and perfect members,  there will alway be members who perceive themselves as oppressed for one reason or another, either rightly or wrongly.      In short,  if what you say is true,  if people can't endure persecution or oppression or suffering for the sake of unity,  if the very fact of their persecution or oppression eliminates unity -  then there's not going to be any unity at all.

In many ways we are more mature, in others maybe not. But we do have 2,000 years of subsequent church history behind us, whereas the churches Paul wrote to only had what, twenty or thirty at best? They were mostly new converts from either Judaism or paganism, living in a pagan society. They had no Bibles in which to look up "the rules" on how to handle the problems facing them; and its only because they had those problems that we have most of the New Testamrent, as the apostles had to step in and sort out the messes, leaving us their instructions to those churches. Christianity is some 2,000 years old now-I'd say that gives us a perspective the earliest Christians were lacking.

As for my being "reactionary"-in the case of my church the "other side" really did start it. I think the rest of us reacted in the appropriate ways.

What I was saying is that I don't think there can be real, substantive unity unless there's a unity of purpose- what Paul called being of "one mind." Back in April of 1993 my church was decidedly not of one mind-the issues facing us were literally ripping the church apart, to the extent that our ministries and outreach programs gound to a screeching halt as we thrashed out the problems facing us. We weren't able to do anything else until we settled that problem.

I doubt very seriously that Corinth was doing any substantive ministries being as divided as it was. The members were focused on themselves and their different cliques. Paul even calls them divided-even though there had been no physical split (they were still apparently meeting together) there was very definitely a spiritual split, as some of them were openly living in sin, they were divided into different factions, had people trying to one-up each other with demonstrations of their spiritual gifts, had a group of women causing public disturbances in the assembly, and had turned the communion meal into an all you can eat free-for-all.

My statement doesn't presuppose either perfect members or perfect leaders, but it does presuppose that there's a general consensus among all the parties concerned, a unity of purpose if you will. As Lincoln said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. If a church were divided into two "factions" as mine was, it could not be considered united. And, unless it settled the problems, like mine did it would fall.

Like I said before-you can put 350 Democrats and Republicans in the same room, but does that mean they're united? No. Real unity is more than just numerical unity.

Besides which, leaders in a church are responsible to their flock. And in Acts 15, the apostles and elders, together with the whole church, picked delegates to send to Antioch to deal with the Judaizers.

Pax.[/color]

Lee,

I don't expect you to agree with or even to understand the passage I posted - but I thought it might be something for some other people to think about.

I don't really know you Lee,  but it seems like you have a real need to rehash whatever it was that happened to you in 1993 over and over again.      It might you help you if you could find a way to put that behind you and move on.

Lee, Paul did tell the church at Corinth:  "Well, since you guys can't get along, I want those who want to follow Apollos to go across town and meet at another location."  Did he?

QuoteLee,

I don't expect you to agree with or even to understand the passage I posted - but I thought it might be something for some other people to think about.

I don't really know you Lee,  but it seems like you have a real need to rehash whatever it was that happened to you in 1993 over and over again.      It might you help you if you could find a way to put that behind you and move on.

I'm sorry to keep re-hashing that old incident. I only brought it up again as an example that seemed germane to the discussion at hand-church splits and how to maintain unity. I honestly have no baggage (at least that I'm consciously aware of) from 1993. Nor do I wish those folks at my old church any ill will. Nor to paint my church as martyrs or supersaints.

So I'll try not to mention it again.

Pax.[/color]

QuoteLee, Paul did tell the church at Corinth:  "Well, since you guys can't get along, I want those who want to follow Apollos to go across town and meet at another location."  Did he?

No, he didn't. My point was that the Corinthian church, while still physically meeting together, wasn't truly united-as Paul makes clear in chapter one verses 11-13.

Simply staying together without resolving the differences among them wouldn't have been a solution in my view, with one faction or the other finally having to resolve itself to the fact that it had tried to fix things to no effect, and so must accept the chaos under duress. I don't see that as being healthy for the individual members as, the church as a whole, or the spread of the gospel.

But Jesus himself laid out the guidelines for withdrawing from someone when all efforts at reconcilation had been tried and failed, and Paul himself gave Alexander and Hymeaeus over to Satan so that they would learn not to boast, which was  disunity.

Obviously I could very well be wrong about all of this.

Pax.[/color]

BOG, what now?

I'm at the point that I want to explore what to to do next.

Do we abide in our Church of Christ heritage, al a I Cor. 7:17--"Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."?

OR

Do we seek to reconcile to a physical church of the holy, apolostolic tradition?

All for One?
by Frederica Mathewes-Green [from here]

"The need is felt to join forces and spare no energies" to renew dialogue between Catholic and Orthodox Christians, said Pope Benedict XVI. In comments to delegates of the Patriarch of Constantinople on June 30, the pope explained that "the unity we seek is neither absorption nor fusion, but respect for the multiform fullness of the Church."

Outsiders may wonder: Why don't those two venerable denominations just kiss and make up? From the outside, they look a lot alike. Each church claims roots in earliest Christian history. The dispute that split them is a thousand years old. Isn't it time to move on?

It is my own Orthodox brethren who appear to be the cranky partners. Catholics have been making friendly overtures for more than a decade now. Pope John Paul II even said that the extent of papal power-over which the two churches split in the 11th century-could be "open to a new situation." Both churches hold as ideal a united body with Rome as "first among equals." Yet the Orthodox drag their feet, sometimes seeming downright rude. A Catholic friend tells me that the attitude seems to be: "Take this olive branch and shove it."

The Orthodox Church is smaller and less powerful, so we don't get much opportunity to explain how things seem from our perspective. But it comes down to two words: "unity" and "chaos."

From a Roman Catholic perspective, unity is created by the institution of the church. Within that unity there can be diversity; not everyone agrees with official teaching, some very loudly. What holds things together is membership. This kind of unity makes immediate sense to Americans: Whatever their disagreements, everyone salutes the flag, and all Catholics salute, if not technically obey, Rome's magisterium.

When Roman Catholics look at Orthodoxy, they don't see a centralized, global institution. Instead, the church appears to be a jumble of national and ethnic bodies (a situation even more confused in the U.S. as a result of immigration). To Catholics, the Orthodox Church looks like chaos.

But from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things. It's like the unity among vegetarians or Red Sox fans. You don't need a big bureaucracy to keep them faithful. Across wildly diverse cultures, Orthodox Christians show remarkable unity in their faith. (Of course there are plenty of power struggles and plain old sin, but the essential faith isn't challenged.) What's the source of this common faith? The consensus of the early church, which the Orthodox stubbornly keep following. That consensus was forged with many a bang and dent, but for the past millenium major questions of faith and morals have been pretty much at rest in the Eastern hemisphere.

This has not been the case in the West. An expanded role for the pope was followed by other theological developments, even regarding how salvation is achieved. In the American church, there is widespread upheaval. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic Church looks like chaos.

This is hard for Catholics to understand; for them, the institution of the church is the main thing. If the church would enforce its teachings, some adherents say, there would be unity. The Orthodox respond: But faith must be organic. If you have to force people to it, you've already lost the battle; that wouldn't be unity at all.

So we've got two different definitions of "unity." Is "unity" membership in a common institution or a bond of shared belief? The Orthodox take their cue from Christ's prayer to his Father, "that they all may be one, even as we are one." What kind of unity do the Father and the Son have? They are not held together by an outside force; they are one in essence and have a common mind. If we are "partakers of the divine nature," as St. Peter said, then, the Orthodox believe, we'll participate in that mind. That's what makes us the "body of Christ," the church.

Thus the Orthodox hesitate at a phrase like the pope's "multiform fullness." Catholic diversity makes it easy for Catholics to embrace us: When they look at us, they see the early church. We fit right in. But when the Orthodox look at Catholics, we see an extra thousand years of theological development, plus rebellion in the pews. What kind of unity do Catholics have, at present, that we could enter?

There are plenty of good reasons for the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches to talk. Discussion clears away misunderstanding, and common causes can benefit from the energies of both churches. But we can't be fully united until we agree on what "unity" means.

tidbit.

I do believe Mrs. Mathewes-Green is a bit off.

QuoteBut from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things

What can I say, this is the same as what Lee is proposing, except Lee's list is shorter.

Of course, there should be unity of belief but that's not the same thing as what Mrs. Mathews-Green stated above. There is also unity of practice, unity of organization (and that little list is probably not exhaustive). She is simply papering over these other items.

And if I understand BOG right, I agree with him that unity isn't something to be created. Its more of a pre-existant reality. The only question is if I'm, on a personal level, united with that pre-existant reality.

Ken[/color]

Quotetidbit.

I do believe Mrs. Mathewes-Green is a bit off.

QuoteBut from an Orthodox perspective, unity is created by believing the same things

What can I say, this is the same as what Lee is proposing, except Lee's list is shorter.[/color]

Yes, I thought of that, too.  However, I do perceive a substantial unity of thought, even among the different EOC jurisdictions.  Remember, they aren't hamstrung with the "Right of Personal Interpretation", and they have the benefit of 2000 years of church history.

Thanks for that article by Matthews-Greene; I've read some of her work on early and modern Gnosticism and like it quite a lot.

From Bishop Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church, Revised Edition, chapter 16 "The Orthodox Church and Christian Reunion":

The Orthodox Church in all humility believes itself to be the 'one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church,' of which the Creed speaks: such is the fundamental conviction which guides Orthodox in their relations with other Christians. There are divisions among Christians, but the Church itself is not divided and can never be.

It may seem that this exclusive claim on the Orthodox side precludes any serious 'ecumenical dialogue' between Orthodox and other Christians, and any constructive work by Orthodox for reunion. And yet it would be wrong to draw such a conclusion: for, paradoxically enough, over the past seventy years there have been a large number of encouraging and fruitful contacts. Although enormous obstacles still remain, there has also been real progress towards a reconciliation.

If Orthodox claim to construe the one true Church, what then do they consider to be the status of those Christians who do not belong to their communion? Different Orthodox would answer in different ways, for although nearly all Orthodox are agreed in their fundamental teaching concerning the Church, they do not entirely agree concerning the practical consequences which follow from this teaching. There is first a more moderate group, which includes most of those Orthodox who have had close personal contact with other Christians. This group holds that, while it is true to say that Orthodoxy is the Church, it is false to conclude from this that those who are not Orthodox cannot possibly belong to the Church. Many people may be members of the Church who are not visibly so; invisible bonds may exist despite an outward separation. The Spirit of God blows where it chooses and, as Irenaeus said, where the Spirit is, there is the Church. We know where the church is, but we cannot be sure where it is not. This means, as Khomiakov insists, that we must refrain from passing judgement on non-Orthodox Christians:

Inasmuch as the  earthly and visible Church is not the fullness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord appointed to appear at the final judgement of creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits. . . She does not judge the rest of humankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of humankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgement of the great day.

There is only one Church, but there are many different ways of being related to this one Church, and many different ways of being separated from it. Some non-Orthodox are very close indeed to Orthodoxy, others less so; some are friendly to the Orthodox Church, others indifferent or hostile. By God's grace the Orthodox Church possesses the fullness of truth (so its members are bound to believe), but there are other Christian communions which possess to a greater or lesser degreee a genuine measure of Orthodoxy. All these facts must be taken into account: one cannot simply say that all non-Orthodox are outside the Church, and leave it at that; one cannot treat other Christians as if they stood on the same level with unbelievers

Such is the view of the more moderate party. But there exists in the Orthodox Church a more rigorous group, who hold that since Orthodoxy is the Church, anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a member of the Church. Thus Metropolitan Antony Khrapoovitsky, the first head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and one of the most distinguished of modern Russian theologians, wrote in his Catechism:

QUESTION: Is it possible to admit that a split within the Church or among the Churches could ever take place?
ANSWER: Never. Heretics and schismatics have from time to time fallen away from the one indivisible Church, and, by so doing, they ceased to be members of the Church, but the Church itself can never lose its unity according to Christ's promise.

Of course (so this stricter group add) divine grace may well be active among many non-Orthodox, and if they are sincere in their love of God, then we may be sure that God will have mercy upon them; but they cannot, in their present state, be termed members of the Church. . . .

Because they believe their Church to be the true Church, Orthodox can have but one ultimate desire: reconciliation of all Christians to Orthodoxy. Yet it must not be thought that Orthodox demand the subjection of other Christians to a particular centre of power and jurisdiction. In the words of Sergius Bulgakov, 'Orthodoxy does not desire the submission of a person or group; it wishes to make each one understand.' The Orthodox Church is a family of sister Churches, decentralized in structure, which means that separated communities can be integrated into Orthodoxy without forefeiting their internal autonomy. Orthodoxy desires unity-in-diversity, not uniformity; harmony-in-freedom, not absorption. There is room in the Orthodox Church for many different cultural patterns, for many different ways of worship, and even for many systems of outward organization.Yet there is a field in which diversity cannot be permitted. Orthodoxy insists upon unity in matters of faith. Before there can be reunion among Christians, there must first be full agreement in faith: this is a basic principle for Orthodox in all their eumenical relations. It is unity in the faith that matters, not organizational unity; and to secure unity of organization at the price of compromise in dogma is like throwing away the kernel of a nut and keeping the shell. Orthodox are not willing to take part in a 'minimal' reunion scheme, which secures agreement on a few points and leaves everything else to private judgement. There can be only one basis for union-the fullness of the faith. But at the same time, as we have insisted earlier, there is a vital distinction between Tradition and traditions, between the essential faith and theological opinions. We seek unity in faith, not in opinions and customs. -


Pax.

From the late John Paull II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope, from the chapter "IS ONLY ROME RIGHT?"

But the Church? The Catholic Church, in particular? Today many people seem to rebel against the claim that salvation can be found only in the Church. Many Christians-and even some Catholics-ask themselves: Why, among all the Christian Churches, should the Catholic Church alone possess and teach the fullness of the Gospel?

Here, before all else, we need to explain the Christian doctrine of salvation, and of the mediation of salvation, which always originates in God. "For there is one God. / There is also one mediator between God and the human race, / Christ Jesus, himself human." (I Tim. 2:5). "There is no salvation through . . . any other name." (Acts 4:12)

It is therefore a revealed truth that there is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church, inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation. In the first words of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, we read: "The Church is in Christ as a sacrament, or a sign and instrument, of intimate union with God and of the unity of the entire human race" (Lumen Gentium I). As the people of God the Church is thus, at the same time, the Body of Christ.

The Council explained in great depth the mystery of the Church: "The Son of God, uniting Himself to human nature and conquering death with his Death and Resurrection, redeemed man and transformed him into a new creation (cf. Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17). By sending forth His Spirit Christ calls together His brothers from among all peoples to form his mystical body" (Lumen Gentium 7). For this reason, as Saint Cyprian says, the universal Church appears as "a people gathered together by the unity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (De Oratione Dominica 23). This life, which is from God and in God, is the actualization of salvation. Man is saved in the Church by being brought into the Mystery of the Divine Trinity, into the mystery of the intimate life of God.

This cannot be understood by looking exclusively at the visible aspect of the Church. The Church is a living body. Saint Paul expressed this in his brilliant insights about the body of Christ (cf. Col. 1:18).

"In this way we all become members of that Body (cf. I Cor. 12:27), and 'individually members of one another' (Rom. 12:5). . . . There is also a diversity of parts and functions in the structure of the mystical Body. One is the Spirit, who for the good of the Church distributes His various gifts with a magnificece equal to His richness and to the needs of the ministries." (Lumen Gentium 7).

Thus, the Council is far from proclaiming any kind of ecclesiocentrism. Its teaching is Christocentric in all of its aspects, and therefore is profoundly rooted in the Mystery of the Trinity. At the heart of the Church is Christ and His Sacrifice, a Sacrifice celebrated in a certain sense on the altar of all creation, on the altar of the world. Christ "is . . . / the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15); through his resurrection He is also "the firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18). Around His redemptive sacrifice is gathered all creation, which is working out its eternal destiny in God. If this process causes pain, it is, however, full of hope, as Saint Paul teaches in the Letter to the Romans (cf. Rom. 8:23-24).

"The one People of God is present among all nations on the earth, since it takes its citizens from every race, citizens of a Kingdom that by its nature is not of this world but from heaven. In fact all of the faithful spread throughout the world are in communion with one another through the Holy Spirit, and do 'he who is in Rome knows that  those on the far side of the earth are his members.'" In the same document, one of the most important of the Second Vatican Council, we read: "In virtue of this catholicity, each individual part brings its gifts to the other parts and to the entire Church, and thus the whole and individual parts are reinforced by communicating with each other, working together to attain fulfillment in unity" (Lumen Gentium 13).

In Christ the Church is a communion in many different ways. Its character as a communion  renders the Church similar to the  communion of the Divine Trinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thanks to this communion, the Church is the instrument of man's salvation. It both contains and continually draws upon the mystery of Christ's redemptive sacrifice. . . .

Thus, Christ is the active subject of humanity's salvation. The Church is as well, inasmuch as it acts on behalf of Christ and in Christ. As the Council teaches: "Christ, present among us in His Body which is the Church, is the one mediator and the way to salvation. Expressly asserting the need for faith and baptism (cf. Mak 16:16; Jn 3:5), he asserted the need for the Church, which men enter through baptism as if through a door. For this reason men cannot be saved who do not want to enter or remain in the Church, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ as a necessity." (Lumen Gentium 14). . . .

The Council speaks of membership in the Church for Christians and of  being related to the Church for non-Christian believers in God, for people of goodwill (cf. Lumen Gentium 15-16). Both these dimensions are important for salvation, and each one possesses varying levels. People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they are always saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical,  Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialgoue of salvation (cf. Ecclesiam Suam 101-107), which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement "Outside the Church there is no salvation."

It would be difficult to deny that this doctrine is extremely open. It cannot be accused of ecclesialogical exclusivism. Those who rebel against claims allegedly made by the Catholic Church probably do not have an adequate understanding of this teaching.

Although the Catholic Church knows that it has received the fullness of the means of salvation, it rejoices when other Christian communities join her in preaching the Gospel. This is the proper context for understanding the Council's teaching that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church (cf. Lumen Gentium 8: Uninitatis Redintegartio 4).

The Church, precisely because it is Catholic, is open to dialogue with all other Christians, with the followers of non-Christian religions, and also with all people of good will. . . The Church wants to proclaim the Gospel together with all who believe in Christ. It wants to point out to all the path to eternal salvation, the fundamental principles of life in the Spirit and in truth. -

Pax.

QuoteBOG, what now?

I'm at the point that I want to explore what to to do next.

Do we abide in our Church of Christ heritage, al a I Cor. 7:17--"Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches."?

OR

Do we seek to reconcile to a physical church of the holy, apolostolic tradition?

tidbit,

What now?  is the question,  isn't it?

And that's hard to say.

How would we go about reconciling with a church of the apostolic tradition?   That's a hard thing to do -

It seems first,  we'd have to be able to indentify that church,  which is basically the question -  Rome or Constantinople?   Would our ultimate aim be to bridge the Tiber or the Bosphorous?

And then - how would we do it,  and how would we bring along our brothers and sisters in our existing fellowships?
How would we make the case that such an effort was desirable?    What would we do about those of our body who are unremittingly hostile to these churches?

How could we resolve our differences over infant baptism vs. believer's baptism?    

How could anyone reconcile "sola scriptura" with acceptance of Apostolic Tradition?

There's a lot to think about, isn't there?

On the other hand,  it's my belief that pursuing the superficial unity of identifying the least possible number of points of agreement and declaring that anything not on the list of agreed points is non-essential is:

a.   Of little value in its self;  and

b.    Would only complicate the real task of reconciling the kind of differences we're discussing here.[/color]

From the chapter "IN SEARCH OF LOST UNITY," from John Paul II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

Pope John XXIII, who was moved by God to summon the Council [Vatican II], used to say: "What separates us as believers in Christ is much less than what unites us." In this statement we find the heart of ecumenical thinking. The Second Vatican Council continued in the same direction, as we have seen in passages already cited from the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, to which we should add the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, and the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. These last two documents are extremely important from an ecumenical point of view.

What unites us is much greater than what separates us: the Council documents gave a more concrete form to John XIII's fundamental intuition. Alll of us, in fact, believe in the same Christ. This faith is the fundamental inheritance of the teaching of the first seven ecumenical councils, which were held in the first millennium. So here is a basis for dialogue and for the growth of unity, a growth that should occur at the same rate at which we are able to overcome our divisions-divisions that to a great degree result from the idea that one can have a monopoly on truth.

These divisions are certainly opposed to what Christ had in mind. It is impossible to imagine that this Church, instituted by Christ on the foundation of the apostles and of Peter, should not be one. But we can also understand how over the centuries contact with different political and cultural climates could have led believers to interpret Christ's message with varying emphases. Nevetheless, these different approaches to understanding and living ouit one's faith in Christ can, in certain cases, be complimentary; they do not have to be mutually exclusive. Good will is needed in order to realize how various interpretations and ways of practicing the faith can come together and complement each other. There is also the need to determine where genuine divisions start, the point beyond which the faith is compromised. It is legitimate to affirm that the gap between the Catholic and the Orthodox Church is not very wide. On the other hand, with regard to the Churches and communities originating in the Reformation, we must recognize that the gap is considerably wider, since several fundamental elements established by Christ were not respected.

At the same time, we must also acknowledge that difficulties of a psychological and historical nature are at times felt more deeply in the Orthodox Churches than in some Protestant communities. This is why personal contacts are so important. I grow more convinced of this every time I meet leaders of these Churches, whether in Rome or during visits to various parts of the world. The very fact that we are able to come together and pray is very significant. Some years ago this was absolutely unthinkable.

In this regard, I must mention several visits I made that had particular importance from an ecumenical point of view-for example, those to Great Britain and to Scandinavia. In general, we can observe that subjective difficulties are greater in those countries where the division first arose. Therefore, with regard to Protestantism, these difficulties are felt far more in Germany and in Switzerland than, for example, in North America or in Africa. I will never forget the statement I heard during an ecumenical gathering with representatives of the Protestant community in Cameroon: "We know we are divided, but we do not know why."

In Europe the situation is quite different. Nevertheless, one can see much evidence of a growing desire to work for Christian unity. . . .

From the chapter "WHY DIVIDED?"

Yes, indeed, we can ask ourselves: Why did the Holy Spirit permit all these divisions? In general, the causes and historical development of these divisions are well-known. It is legitimate, however, to wonder if there is perhaps a metahistorical reason as well.

There are twoo possible answers to this question. The more negative one would see in these divisions the bitter fruit of sins committed by Christians. The more positive answer is inspired by trust in the One who is capable of bringing forth good even from evil, from human weakness. Could it be that these divisions have also been  a path continually leading the Church to discover the untold wealth contained in Christ's Gospel and in the redemption accomplished by Christ? Perhaps all this wealth would not have come to light otherwise. . . .

More generally, we can affirm that for human knowledge and action a certain dialectic is present. Didn't the Holy Spirit, in His divine "condescendence," take this into consideration? It is necessary for humanity to achieve unity through plurality, to learn together in the one Church, even while presenting a plurality of ways of thinking and acting, of cultures and civilizations. Wouldn't such a way of looking at things be, in a certain sense, more consonant with the wisdom of God, with His goodness and providence?

Nevertheless, this cannot be a justification for the divisions that continue to deepen! The time must come for the love that unites us to be manifested! Many things lead us to believe that that time is now here, and as a result, the importance of ecumenism for Christianity should be evident. Ecumenism is a response to the exhortation in the First Letter of Peter to "give an explanation [of] the reason for our hope" (cf. I Pt. 3:15). . . . -


Pax.

Quotetidbit,

What now?  is the question,  isn't it?

And that's hard to say.

How would we go about reconciling with a church of the apostolic tradition?   That's a hard thing to do -

It seems first,  we'd have to be able to indentify that church,  which is basically the question -  Rome or Constantinople?   Would our ultimate aim be to bridge the Tiber or the Bosphorous?

And then - how would we do it,  and how would we bring along our brothers and sisters in our existing fellowships?
How would we make the case that such an effort was desirable?    What would we do about those of our body who are unremittingly hostile to these churches?

How could we resolve our differences over infant baptism vs. believer's baptism?    

How could anyone reconcile "sola scriptura" with acceptance of Apostolic Tradition?

There's a lot to think about, isn't there?

There may possibly be a vision here for a reform movement within churches of Christ, but I have to ask, what would be the point? What would be the authoritative basis for this reform?

My own conjecture (and I think BOG may have alluded to this in the past) is that churches of Christ may best be able serve as a bridge between Protestantism and the apostolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). But we all know what bridges are, they're not meant to be a stopping point, merely an expedient way for getting from one point to another.

IF churches of Christ could blossom into another unity movement (and I'm thinking unity between Catholics and Protestants), what changes would be required?

The first step would almost certainly have to be dropping the whole "Great Apostasy" theory. In fact, I think the CA2005 authors are heading in that direction. They quoted a Catholic (Hans Kung) and referenced Orthodox worship practices.

Ken[/color]

Ken wrote:

QuoteThere may possibly be a vision here for a reform movement within churches of Christ, but I have to ask, what would be the point? What would be the authoritative basis for this reform?

First, I don't think there is a basis for reform, other than the reform being attempted by the 'Innovative Churches.'  The traditional churches are satisfied with their theology (as Beam pointed out in the other thread).  However, who needs an authoritative basis when each congregation is free to interpret the scriptures as they see fit?

QuoteIF churches of Christ could blossom into another unity movement (and I'm thinking unity between Catholics and Protestants), what changes would be required?

Good points about the bridge, BTW.  I don't think the CoC could effectively act as much of a bridge, seeing how relatively insignificant we are in terms of numbers.  We've got a billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox on one side, and hundreds of millions of Protestants on the other.  I think if anyone is going to bridge that gap, it would be a group of Protestants whose sacrimental theology more closely matches Catholicism (like our Lutheran friends).

The strongest impediment to viewing orthodox Christians as brothers are our non-sacramental beliefs.  I think it is inconsistent to believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, and yet fail to recognize the importance of the incarnation and the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.  

Having said that, my studies have confirmed that CoC theology and orthodox (eastern and western) theology are much more similar to each other than to Protestantism.

More later....[/color]

QuoteI think if anyone is going to bridge that gap, it would be a group of Protestants whose sacrimental theology more closely matches Catholicism (like our Lutheran friends).

And, the Lutherans might be the logical ones to do it, since their namesake sparked the Protestant Reformation in the first place.

As one whose blog posts have been cited in this thread of late, I have to say that I disagree on any particular Protestant group serving as a "bridge" to the Catholic or Orthodox Churches.  Part of my disagreement has to do with the fact, for example, that Lutherans would have to deny their five hundred year history to unite with Rome.  In the case of the CofC, they would have to deny their own two hundred year history to reunite with the Lutherans (or whomever), and then deny that history to reunite with Rome.

Nor can I see that anything in Lutheranism would naturally orient it toward the Orthodox.  And in any case, for a Lutheran to become Orthodox would not be (in Lutheran context) a "natural" move.  Nor would Lutheranism be an obvious bridge to Orthodoxy.

No, it's really a simple matter.  If a CofC person or a congregation wish to reunite with historic apostolic Christianity, it will not be by way of a conscious attempt to become some other Protestant group first.  It will simply be a means of eventually becoming Catholic or Orthodox.  Protestants of all stripes are becoming Catholic or Orthodox as a means of the providential ordering of their lives and not via the intentional temporary union with another Protestant branch.

Or to say it another way: CofC'ers will reunite with another Protestant group because they want to become that sort of Christian and not as a conscious means toward going on beyond that to Rome or the Orthodox.

For what it's worth, of all the CofC'ers (or RM'ers generally) that I know or of whom I am aware who have gone over to Rome or Orthodoxy, all of them have gone Orthodox.  I think it is more natural for CofC'ers to become Orthodox than Catholic.  But others' mileage may vary.

Clifton

Glad you're here.  I hope you check in often.

Welcome Mr. Healy.

You have to take any "bridge" talk with a grain of salt (OK, more like a block of salt). However, I think such a movement is possible with those who are discontent with churches of Christ and not willing to go Orthodox or Catholic. As you rightly point out, if such a movement did appear it would only result in another denomination.

Ken

QuoteNo, it's really a simple matter.  If a CofC person or a congregation wish to reunite with historic apostolic Christianity, it will not be by way of a conscious attempt to become some other Protestant group first.  It will simply be a means of eventually becoming Catholic or Orthodox.  Protestants of all stripes are becoming Catholic or Orthodox as a means of the providential ordering of their lives and not via the intentional temporary union with another Protestant branch.

The big question is how to make the case that heading in this direction is a good idea.

QuoteFor what it's worth, of all the CofC'ers (or RM'ers generally) that I know or of whom I am aware who have gone over to Rome or Orthodoxy, all of them have gone Orthodox.  I think it is more natural for CofC'ers to become Orthodox than Catholic.  But others' mileage may vary.

I know about 3 or 4 of them who did go Catholic.

CoCers who became Catholic

Ken[/color]

Ken:

Thank you.  I hope it was clear that my advocacy of the naturalness of CofC'ers going Orthodox was a) anecdotal and b) suffused with my own prejudices.

BOG:

Thanks.  I intend to.

I actually registered a few months ago when my blog was linked as a RM'er who is going Orthodox, but was always prohibited when trying to reply.

Ken recently posted a comment on one of my ecumenism posts, and via that encouragement I re-registered.  Obviously this time it "took."

BOG:

I'm not sure how to encourage CofC'ers that this is a good idea, frankly.

It's curious.  On the one hand I think the CofC'er hermeneutic is imminently suited toward Orthodoxy (even more so, with all charity, than Roman Catholicism).  On the other, I think CofC'ers generally are quite sectarian/closed to outside groups.

In my own particular case, it started with two contradictions:
1. The RM wants to restore NT Christianity, apparently believes that Christ meant it when he said the gates of hell will not prevail over his Church, but then preaches that the Church apostasized shortly after St. John's death, then leapfrogs over 1700 years of the life of the Church to "start anew."

and

2. The RM hermeneutic goes to great lenghts to affirm what the Scripture says about the efficacy, in salvific terms, of baptism (thus thinking of it as a sacrament, though without the terminology), and  yet goes to great lengths to avoid the conclusions of their own hermeneutic when applying it to the texts on the Lord's Supper, and embrace a distinctly anti-NT conclusion that it is *merely* a memorial.

From there it was a fourteen year journey to where I'm at now.