Visible Church

[Trudy]

Dear Monachos Readers,

I am trying to understand how the "invisible" church is considered a heretical teaching. I asked this question of someone and they explained it as: "it makes the Body of Christ abstract and divides the humanity of Jesus into a spiritual side and physical side which are not connected." He went on to explain that Christ was not divided, being both fully human and fully Divine, therefore the Body of Christ now is not divided. Thus there is no "invisible" Church. She is completely visible in Orthodoxy.

Another person said it had to do with the sacraments; that they are tangible and visible.

This still confuses me. There are many Protestant churches that claim to have the sacraments; baptism, communion, and marriage to name three.

Yet Orthodoxy, at least here in the US, appears divided - is jurisdictional. Or is it that we are not divided because we all believe the same Creed, thus are united as the Body of Christ?

Are any of these connected? Or am I confusing different issues? Meaning the jurisdictional division in the US is a completely different egg versus the egg that is the "invisible" church?

Forgive my ignorance and if offend anyone by my questions especially as they relate to jursdictions. It is not my intention to flame anyone. My main question deals with the Protestant teaching of the invisible church being heresy.

Thank you in advance for your help.

In Christ, Athanasia

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Athanasia,
Could you explain what the Protestant teaching about the invisible church is? I don't know what this means. Thanks.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Trudy]

Sure Fr. Raphael,

The Protestant notion of the invisible church is that when someone "accepts Christ as their Savior" they become part of the church. It is by profession of faith and the subsequent baptism that may (or may not) follow, is symbolic of the testimony of their faith in Christ.

Since there are so many denominations and "no one church has a corner on the market" of salvation (as someone once put it), there is no visible church of Christ to belong to.

Even though a person may be Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian in theology, if they are a Christian they are part of the "church." It is the profession of faith that makes a person part of the church which is the Body of Christ.

Now in Orthodoxy, the Body of Christ, the Church, is visible. You can see/know you are a part of the Church when you are baptized and chrismated. Right? So what about the Protestant teaching? How is the invisible considered heresy? Aren't the Saints who we can't necessarily "see" but are the Church Triumphant, invisible?

I hope I've not confused you more.

Athanasia

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Athanasia,

As one who is wholly uninformed about a lot of things, this is my "two cents worth" opinion.

Many years ago as a young Charismatic-Southern Baptist, I wrote an essay -a couple of pages worth- which basically said what you've just explained to Fr. Raphael. I was told after showing it to a member of the leadership at the congregation I was a part of " Don't say that to loudly."

I've learned since asking Jesus to forgive my sins; take control of my life, and make me what He wanted me to be , that, more than a few things in the Scriptures can be interpreted more than one way. For instance, take the phrase kingdom of God. A kingdom usually means a king, a realm-geographic location-, subjects, and of course, rules. Now just because there will one day be a future physical realm on earth, in which Jesus reigns as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, it does not mean that He is presently not reining in His Kingdom. The Kingdom of God, and of His Christ, is both a physical and an invisible kingdom.

As you say; everyone who names the name of Christ, becomes a member of His Body. As members of His Body we congregate as the Church for worship, which gives the physical dimension to the entity.

Re: My remarks at the beginning of this post. This is what I believe, that is until I'm shown to be wrong by someone who knows what the Orthodox position really is.
(O.K. Fr.'s, Matthew, this is where you gentlemen come in).

a sinful and unworthy servant

[Olga]

Simply put, the jurisdictional nature of the Orthodox church is a legacy of the patriarchal system, with the original patriarchates being Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria. This system was always intended to be a collegiate system, where all patriarchs were equal, with a special consideration (though not greater power) was bestowed to the patriarch of Rome, and later to the patriarch of Constantinople. In later centuries, other patriarchates were added to the list, such as Moscow, Belgrade, etc.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear James, Athanasia, all

Here I'm really showing my ignorance, but - does "Kingdom" mean literally a kingdom? Is our Lord expected by us Orthodox to reign as king here on earth (and are we referring to the "1000 years" in Revelation here?)?

Also, re "invisible church", I think I came across the idea in C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters", though not as Athanasia has clearly explained it above - more as the notion that not everyone who goes to church or calls themselves Christian, is actually part of the Body of Christ. In this sense, the real Church is "invisible"...please correct me if this is a mistaken notion.

In Christ
Byron

[Daniel Jeandet]

As I understand it, the Churches position is:

We know where Grace is (we know it is in the Orthodox Church), but we DO NOT claim to know where GRACE IS NOT.

I dont mean to be rude, but I find it kind of funny to think of us trying to identify the location or boundries of something we accept to be invisible http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Concerning the "Kingdom", from Saint Maximos the confessor's "On the Lords prayer":

"We should next invoke the rule of the Kingdom of God the Father with the words 'Thy Kingdom come' (Matt. 6 : 10), that is, 'May the Holy Spirit come'; for, having put away these things, we are now made into a temple for God through the Holy Spirit by the teaching and practice of gentleness. 'For on whom shall I rest,' says scripture, 'but on him who is gentle and humble, and trembles at my words?' (cf. Isa. 66 :2)".

"It is clear from this that The Kingdom of God the Father belongs to the humble and gentle. For, 'blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth' (Matt. 5 :5)."

"It is not this physical earth, which by nature occupies a middle place in the universe, that God promises as an inheritance for those who love Him - not, at least, if He is speaking truly when He says, 'In the resurection they niether marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels in Heaven' (Matt. 22 : 30), and 'Come, you whom my Father has blessed, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world' (Matt. 25 : 34), and elsewhere again to someone else who has striven with goodwill, 'Enter into the joy of your Lord' (Matt. 25 : 21). And after the Lord Saint Paul also says, 'The trumpet will sound and first the dead in Christ will rise up incorrupt; then we who are alive and remain will be caught up with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall be with the Lord forever' (cf. 1 Thes. 4 : 16-17)."

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks Athansia for the explanation about the invisible church.
Isn't this really an attempt to justify an understanding of the Church not based on that of the Church as the sacramental Body of Christ? It seems that this idea tries to justify that one can be a Christian without the Church and that faith comes down to personal feelings.
So to this idea of an invisible church I wouldn't try to show that there is a visible also. I would point that the Church is the actual living Body of Christ that we are all called to be members of.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Patrick Walsh]

Greetings All and Blessings,

We are forgetting our Patristics here. We are forgetting the great debates of the fourth and fifth century over the question, "Who is Christ?" I believe we must be able to properly answer the question Christ posed to Peter, "Whom do you say that I am?" in order to claim to be a Christian.

For example, St, Gregory the Theologian states in unequivocal terms, that whoever denies that the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God cuts himself off from salvation. To do so would deny the human nature of Christ, who is both fully human and fully God. To believe in Christ is to believe in the true Christ, not something claiming to be Christ. The concept of the all-encompassing "invisible church" that contains all those who "believe in Christ as Lord and Savior," does not in any way divide those who believe in Christ and those who believe in a false Christ.

So this notion of who is Christian and who is not does not meet St. Paul's admonition to us to divide rightly the truth.

Please forgive me my boldness, and please admonish me if I am in error, but admonish me with guidance and correction.

In Christ
Patrick

[Trudy]

Dear Fr. Raphael and all,

Thank you for your responses to help me understand this notion of invisible church. As I re-read each response, I've additional questions for anyone to answer. I will address each as presented.

Patrick wrote:


The concept of the all-encompassing "invisible church" that contains all those who "believe in Christ as Lord and Savior," does not in any way divide those who believe in Christ and those who believe in a false Christ.

So if I understand what is said here in context with the right belief of the Holy Theotokos, if that belief is not accepted, the profession of faith makes no matter because it is false. Christ received his humanity from the Virgin Mary, and to not accept that is to believe in a false Christ. Am I getting that right?

Fr. Raphael wrote:


Isn't this really an attempt to justify an understanding of the Church not based on that of the Church as the sacramental Body of Christ?

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand Father. What does the sacramental Body of Christ mean? Protestants claim to have sacraments as well. Am I being to literal in my understanding of the word?

Daniel wrote:


We know where Grace is (we know it is in the Orthodox Church), but we DO NOT claim to know where GRACE IS NOT. I dont mean to be rude, but I find it kind of funny to think of us trying to identify the location or boundries of something we accept to be invisible.

By this Daniel, do you mean that it is impossible to identify the boundaries of where Grace is? In that, I agree. Thus my question again, if we don't know where Grace is not, then how is the invisible church as claimed by Protestants heresy? Grace could be anywhere. Thus the concept and belief of the invisible church is valid. No?

Please keep hammering away at my thoughts so as to instruct me. My brain can be incredibly thick and slow to grasp these things so that I may absorb them into my heart. There is 25 years worth of baggage to set aside in this topic. Thank you all for your continued instruction.

Warmly,
Athanasia

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The Church certainly goes beyond being the place wherein one finds the sacraments. Christ used the image of the Vine for the Church while St Paul referred to the Body. This means that the Church is a new organism of the saints who are given life through Christ. From what is fallen everyone who grafts themselves into the life of Christ through an acceptance of the life of the Church is being literally recreated. So the Church is the Body of Christ wherein is also found the Kingdom of God as a resurrected way of life.
This is new life however does not apply only to some people of a certain time. The communion of saints which is the Church stretches across previous times and intersects with ours and continues on into the future so that the Church is of time & also timeless. And the light of this life of the Church recreates not only the people who are actively involved with Her through conscious decision but also all of creation. Thus the Church is a foretaste of "a new heaven and a new earth."
It is no surprise that within this reality is found the sacraments for the Church is supremely sacramental in character transforming everything within it through the living grace of Christ. In this sense everything within the Church is sacramental because the very nature of the Church is to be sacramental; so the specific sacraments are manifestations of the deeper nature of the Church and a witness to this.
From all of this we can see that the life of the Church cannot be separated from man's ultimate purpose which is deification. So the Transfiguration of our Lord refers to the deeper meaning & purpose of the Church. The life of the Church which this refers to however is not 'invisible'- ie a body of the 'faithful' which transcends the Church ; rather it is something that we very much have communion with and experience even though the its source is in the uncreated energies of the Trinity.
This perhaps also helps explain the mental puzzle we have about the boundaries of the Church. The 'invisible church' is not about boundaries as much as it is about a church that transcends the Church (or churches by Protestant definition). It is a statement about how subjective belief about Christ is what defines where the Church is; and by this definition there are much clearer boundaries than the Church has about itself! This is because the Church knows that there is an objective Church- but because the ultimate purpose of the Church is the deification of all of creation it cannot see precisely where its own boundaries are. Maybe a good image would be the sun. There is something objectively existing which is the sun. All visible light comes from the sun. But it is impossible for us to see the full extent of the sun's light.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Trudy]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for this explanation. I'm still thinking about what you wrote. I think I still have a question but am still formulating it! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/lol.gif

In Christ, Athanasia

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Quite an interesting conversation regarding questions of the 'visible/invisible church'. Perhaps it is worth noting that, in addition to the (very nicely presented above) idea, popular in much ecumenical dialogue today, that such terminology implies a 'church' that goes beyond 'churches' in an earthly sense, there is also some usage of the terms that is more appropriate to an Orthodox context. Such usage is helpful as a reminder that the interior state of the person is not wholly disclosed by 'membership' in the Church (and here I refer to the Orthodox Church): the mystery of one's status with God, of one's union with the divine, is not simply a one-to-one equation with a given adherence to the Creed and participation in the mysteries. This ties in to comments made already above, namely, that the Church speaks humbly yet boldly of the grace she possesses as the gift of God, but does not make claims as to its limits, nor to the state of its reception in the heart of its members.

[Patrick Walsh]

Father Raphael
Blessings and Greetings

Forgive my delay in responding to you. I have just returned from my stay at Holy Trinity Monastery. I am still pretty much not with it as a result of my visit there. It was a difficult and traumatic visit, but not one which I regret and I plan to return there as soon as I am able.

It is my understanding from what St. Gregory the Theologian wrote in his first epistle to Clendenus that to deny that the Theotokos is the Mother of God is to deny Christ's humanity. This is the letter in which he made his famous statement, "What is not assumed is not healed." He goes into great detail, that Christ was in the womb a fetus, and then an infant, and then a young lad, and so on up until the time of his crucifixion--fully man, fully the son of the Mother of God, and fully God. This is also recanted in the Akathist to the Sweetest Jesus in a most beautiful manner. I am too tired to look it up right now though.

As for the discussion on Grace within the Church, I believe that there is grace throughout all existence, since it all is created by God. Also, it is by grace we are called to be Orthodox Children in Christ. Without this grace outside the Church, there would be nothing to draw the true seekers into the Church.

However, in my humble opinion, we must distinguish between grace in a general form, and that vivifying grace that grant salvation. Since it is the whole man that is to be saved, body, mind, soul, the Church is necessary. The Church is the Communion of the Faithful, those who have partaken in good faith the Holy life giving blood and flesh of Christ, and those who have been born into the Church through the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. This is how I understand Grace, that is Grace in general, and salvific Grace that is only in the Church.

I stand with all the humility my sinful heart will allow before you to be corrected.

Patrick

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Patrick,

Thank you for your post.

What I meant in my last post about the Church is that it is the ultimate reference point of truth and life. Apart from the Church there is the rebellion of the fall; these two are radically different- the Church and sinful rebellion. But yet grace constantly acts to draw men from the state of rebellion towards that of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Trudy]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Today while listening to an Orthodox radio program via the web, I had the opportunity to listen to a sermon given by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon on the Church as a Living Organism. I think I got my questions answered completely after re-reading your posts, engaging in conversation with a former professor, and hearing that sermon.

Thus I don't have anything else to ask at this time. But I reserve the right to come back with another one!!! http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/rofl.gif

Thank you for your kind help.

In Christ, Athanasia