The Church: its nature, limit and boundaries

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I wonder if I might try to widen the scope of this discussion to try to incorporate a topic which has arisen lately (and not so lately) across a number of threads - and that is the nature of what is meant by 'the Church'?

This is a theme that has emerged on a number of threads recently, and one that is difficult even to articulate, partly because it is unclear that we have an adequate language with which to express it; indeed even to suggest that there may be something to discuss that might be called 'the nature of the Church' is to begin to articulate the problematics of this one.

Even Bishop Kallistos, whose comments on the west and Orthodoxy are being explored elsewhere here, has problems dealing with the issue. He articulates a number of ‘positions’ which Orthodox people might take up in relation to the notion of what 'the Church' means; but even that language raises hackles, since there are those who think it if not heretical, then on the high road to it, to talk about ‘positions’: either there is a Church which contains the teaching of the Truth, or there is not; and to go for the latter option is unthinkable – whilst, to go for the first is, in the bishops’ phrase, to be a ‘rigorist’.

In the more recent editions of The Orthodox Church, the bishop distinguishes between what he calls ‘traditionalists’ and those of a more ‘liberal’ persuasion.; but even to write in such language is to fall foul of Orthodox ecclesiology; it may be acceptable in the realm of theologoumena, but not for ecclesiology. In this realm, as Fr. David has put it concisely in another thread
It is an absolute Truth that the Orthodox Church is the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Thus, to use the sort of language the bishops uses runs several risks – and these are ones which I think Fr. Raphael has directed us towards – and at least one of them would seem to be one which, albeit unconsciously, I have been running.

What are these risks? The first is that whether we like it or not, the society in which we live attaches negative connotations towards words such as ‘rigorist’ or ‘conservative’; they can come out as ‘fundamentalist’, with all that that carries with it. ‘Liberal’ on the other hand is a ‘good’ word, and so if one is eirenic, one automatically arrogates to oneself a moral high ground in which, by definition, one’s opponent is narrow-minded. Since I am unused to being seen as a liberal of any variety, it had genuinely not occurred to me that my fondness for an eirenic view could, or would, be read in this other sense; I can only reiterate that that was not what I was about. It shows the extent to which other debates one may have taken part of can shape one’s reception of the language of others.

Of this position it has been written that

by failing honestly to confront the heterodox about their heresy, true ecclesial status, and the claims of the Church; and by failing to explain forthrightly that true Christian unity can only be achieved by a return to Holy Orthodoxy, such ecumenists undermine that very unity which they claim to be seeking.’ (The Non-Orthodox: The Orthodox Teaching on Christians Outside of the Church.)

Thus, well-meaning comments such as these by His Grace Bishop Joseph at a banquet on 1 December 1996 in LA to celebrate the silver jubilee of Pope Shenouda's enthronement, when he:
commended His Holiness’ contribution in rejuvenating Eastern Christianity and his monumental endeavor in materializing the unity of the two Orthodox Families, describing them as having “the same spirit of Orthodoxy.” “It is a great mystery,”said His Grace, “to see that fifteen hundred years of alienation within the branches of the two Orthodox Families were unable to shake the oneness of faith and spiritual legacy. . . . After fifteen hundred years. . ., Your Holiness was able to ascertain that the two families have kept the same Eastern Christian Faith. This is a great witness to the meaning of the continuity in sharing the same doctrine, as a fruit of our participation in the Fountain of Truth
Can be seen as a kind of false ecumenism which,
based ... upon dogmatic minimalism and religious syncretism—only serve … to confirm the heterodox in their errors.

But for +Kallistos there is another Orthodox way of looking at this:

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.’

He goes on to write that although
outside the Church there is no salvation ... Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved
But it has been pointed out that:

His Grace’s statements can be too easily misread in support of the un-Orthodox notion of an “invisible true Church,” especially in the light of his later claim that we know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not" This line of thinking—especially when conjoined with an illicit recognition of heterodox sacraments—is not far removed, if at all, from the Branch Theory.

Thus, even formulating a language in which one can discuss the nature of the 'Church' poses problems, since for some, the cloven hoof of false ecumenism is exposed by the very desire to raise the issue. Nonetheless, a language in which it can be articulated without having recourse to preprepared dug-outs might be useful - or again, might not.

In Christ,

John

[Alex Haig]

We are starting down a path here which is trying to define the relationship between Man and God: this clearly can never be achieved adequately since in doing so we would have to define both God and Man.

Personal relationships are so difficult to explain: it is hard enough for us to explain our (differing) relationships with God among ourselves but to find a formula which can be given to non-orthodox is virtually impossible. It is true that the Church teaches salvation is only found within her life but, as quoted above from respected sources, we cannot be sure of her boundaries. This is a matter for much prayer and consideration and only when the Church has given her opinion can we be sure of an Orthodox answer.

With love in the Risen Christ

Alex

[Anthony]

I wonder if I might try to widen the scope of this discussion to try to incorporate a topic which has arisen lately (and not so lately) across a number of threads - and that is the nature of what is meant by 'the Church'?

I would like to suggest, if I may, that this is a different discussion, which perhaps deserves a thread of its own. (Just an opinion, of course.)

[John Charmley]

Dear Alex,

I appreciate what you say here, but wonder whether it need be so?

We are starting down a path here which is trying to define the relationship between Man and God: this clearly can never be achieved adequately since in doing so we would have to define both God and Man.

Personal relationships are so difficult to explain: it is hard enough for us to explain our (differing) relationships with God among ourselves but to find a formula which can be given to non-orthodox is virtually impossible. It is true that the Church teaches salvation is only found within her life but, as quoted above from respected sources, we cannot be sure of her boundaries. This is a matter for much prayer and consideration and only when the Church has given her opinion can we be sure of an Orthodox answer.

With love in the Risen Christ

Alex

You may be right, of course, but I do wonder whether it is not worth trying to find a language in which such a discussion can be had? That need not mean defining anything; indeed, if the discussion went in that direction it would probably be unhelpful.

My concerns arose out of our discussions on the St. Isaac thread, and on what is being said on a number of other current threads. It may, as Anthony suggests, be better to have another thread, but I am always wary of starting up new ones when there are similar discussions that are live elsewhere.

It was, in part, Fr. Raphael's observation at post 121 on the St. Isaac thread that made me wonder about finding a language in which such discussions did not have to be terminated. A site that specialises in Patristic discussions might be peculiarly appropriate, given the number of claims made to descent from the undivided Church. Monastic and ascetic practices dating back to that period and forward from it help define what is meant by living the Christian life. We can ring ourselves off from that by citing ecclesiological considerations, or we can, perhaps, accept the ecclesiological differences as given, but not regard them as precluding discussion.

It was the very difficulty of formulating a language in which such a discussion could be carried on which prompted my post. The very fact that the desire for such a discussion could be seen as part of a hidden agenda of false ecumenism was, in itself, a spur. Understanding why it might seem so would appear a relatively simple task; understanding why it isn't necessarily so might be more difficult. The fact that +Kallistos' language has come in for criticism on this score made me wonder whether the task itself was inherently impossible; I am still not sure it isn't. So I leave it open to any who are interested to take this further - but if it is inappropriate, then let it go, by all means.

In Christ,

John

p.s. I've never seen a post so out of date in part! Just as I posted I received the notification that it had been moved to this new thread - which, despite my disclaimer above, I seem to have started!

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Following Anthony's wise prompting, above, and in order to keep this topic focussed and prevent it from seeping into a great number of threads throughout the forum, I have created this new thread on The Church: Its nature, limit and boundaries. Please let us attempt to locate conversation on these themes here in the new thread, rather than have it spread across many independent conversations.

Background discussions feeding into this will be found, among other places, in the following recent threads:


'Orthodox' Church (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2607)
St Isaac: A Nestorian? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3103)

Additionally, I have moved a few posts from recent threads into this new 'home'; they will be found above this notice.

INXC, Matthew

[Alex Haig]

The problem here is that there seem to be two camps with regards ecumenism, either we should be there exposing others to the Truth of Orthodoxy or our being there somehow validates their existance and theology. Unfortunately this arguement within the Church sometimes leads one side to declare to the other that they're not being orthodox!

I, for what it's worth, think we should be there to meet them: Christ Himself went out to meet people where they were. But, ecumenists themselves make it difficult for us, turning gatherings into 'worship' services or even 'communion' services and they don't seem to realise what a difficult position this puts Orthodox in. Perhaps the way forward would be for Orthodox to host these events so we can state how they should run!

With love in the Risen Christ

Alex

[John Charmley]

Dear Alex,

I suspect that anything that starts with the conclusion that 'there seem to be two camps with regards ecumenism' begins by falling into the pattern of language outlined in my initial post.

It seems very difficult to escape being drawn into an essentially Manichean view of this; indeed, using 'ecumenism' at all might seem to begin a process of defining the discussion in a way that is bound to lead to the conclusion that there are 'two camps'. That isn't to say that there are not, or even to say that that is not where this may end up; but it is to ask the question of whether there might be a more profitable way to have this sort of a discussion. I was struck by the way the piece I quoted from in my initial post immediately went into what seemed predetermined positions in response to what +Kallistos had written; and I was equally struck by the way in which +Kallistos, in an attempt to avoid the tram lines, failed to find an appropriate language to use.

It may be that there are only the tram lines, and that there is no language in which one can engage in discussions about 'the Church' save that of Orthodox ecclesiology. If that is so, then fair enough. It may be that realities of trying to live the Christian life against a background of Orthodox practice are quite different in what Fr. Raphael has called different 'houses'.

Already there is a sense that people will assume whatever positions they usually assume when the word 'ecumenism' is mentioned. But this is not necessarily a thread about that vexed topic (there are others on this site if folk want to narrow it to that), but rather a wider search for a language in which we can discuss Christian history as defined by Matthew Steenberg in his post 76 on the recent St. Isaac thread (16 April 2007)
Christian history is the theological vision of the created economy wrought through the experience of union with Christ.

Now, unless one is going to get ecclesiological with that, and say the only experience of union with Christ is through the one Church (which is fair enough), then there is a Christian history which may be worth exploring, which lies in a wider compass. But then folk may think this an uninteresting or even potentially heretical exercise, which would make it worse than unprofitable to pursue. We shall see whether there is any appetite for trying to evolve a way of framing a discourse that avoids the usual positions; not that there is anything wrong, per se, with those positions - simply that we know what they are and where they lead, and so hardly need to rehearse them again.

In Christ,

John

[Antony Solomon]

Is it possible that the question about the nature of the Church is actually two questions, in many people's minds?

OTOH it is the question of how we do what we do. For Zizioulas, whom I was reading only last night (Being and Communion), the Church is the salvific community gathered around the Eucharist, under a Bishop; that is a definition of church in nuce, and one which he sees as being undermined by the later development of the parish system, and Bishops disconnected from the local church and turned into administrators.

OTOH, the question of Church seems to be rather the question of authority, of who is in charge, who speaks for that group, and who is in and who is out (and who says so).

It is the latter that seems to vex people, and to draw boundaries between Christians, since the former can be open to variance, yet not be heterodox. But the confusion of the two, of equating how we do things as being a test of Orthodoxy, generates more heat than light. The West is hung up on propositional statements, creeds and confessions that separate them from us; my draw to Orthodoxy is that we experience the same things, we are united by the common action of Christ through the Spirit,and a recognition of that. If we then recognise that in others, despite the external wrappings, despite the difference in language - which is inevitable - then all the better: not that we should engage in an ecumenism of organisation, but of the Spirit, and encouragement to pursue things further. Must Orthodoxy spread by denouncing and conquering the West, or by drawing it further along the road that, by the Grace of God, it has started down? Must the unity of the Churches of the East be by a forced conformity to one group's vision of 'how things should be' or a mutual recognition of unity in diversity, of perceived family traits in the extended family of Orthodoxy.

That turned into more of a speech than I intended, sorry ;)

Antony

[Celinda Grace]

Is it possible that the question about the nature of the Church is actually two questions, in many people's minds?

OTOH it is the question of how we do what we do. For Zizioulas, whom I was reading only last night (Being and Communion), the Church is the salvific community gathered around the Eucharist, under a Bishop; that is a definition of church in nuce, and one which he sees as being undermined by the later development of the parish system, and Bishops disconnected from the local church and turned into administrators.

OTOH, the question of Church seems to be rather the question of authority, of who is in charge, who speaks for that group, and who is in and who is out (and who says so).

It is the latter that seems to vex people, and to draw boundaries between Christians, since the former can be open to variance, yet not be heterodox. . The West is hung up on propositional statements, creeds and confessions that separate them from us; my draw to Orthodoxy is that we experience the same things, we are united by the common action of Christ through the Spirit,and a recognition of that. If we then recognise that in others, despite the external wrappings, despite the difference in language - which is inevitable - then all the better: ... Must Orthodoxy spread by denouncing and conquering the West, or by drawing it further along the road that, by the Grace of God, it has started down? Must the unity of the Churches of the East be by a forced conformity to one group's vision of 'how things should be' or a mutual recognition of unity in diversity, of perceived family traits in the extended family of Orthodoxy.

That turned into more of a speech than I intended, sorry ;)

Antony

Wow Antony, Thank you for the speech :)

You say the west is hung up on propositional statements etc. but this is changing, at least in the Protestant west. Among the Contemporary and even more among the Emerging arms of the PC (as opposed to Traditional or Conservative arms) people are wrestling with the very same issues that I see discussed here.

Just to draw the discussion out a little farther. You talk about defining things in terms of "how we do what we do", and "family traits", "the common action of Christ in the Spirit", and "drawing it farther along the road"

It seems to me that in all these things it goes back to the fact that there is a Way that defines Christainity. We know that Way is Christ but what are the defining elements of that Way? What is the timeless unchangable essence and what are merely the external wrappings that can be changed with culture and situation?

Secondly, church authority can't just be discarded. There is a Truth as well as a Way. It seems to me that it is the job of Church authority to help the faithful stay in right relation with the truth. But you bring up a good point. What exactly does this job entail?

Part of that job has to entail protecting the body from 'germs'. There has to be some criteria for 'who is in and who is out'. I would gently suggest that if this board is a good sampling then a large part of the problems with infighting in the Orthodox Church seem to me to be due to the same disease that the PC church has. Too many of the people in power are trying to make the decisions about 'in and out' based on creeds, confessions and tradition as understood rationally and applied universally, rather then allowing for the discernment of the Spirit in situ. Your comments on Zizioulas seem to indicate that you feel this type of centralization (ie universal application) of power is a problem.

[Antonios]

What is the timeless unchangable essence and what are merely the 'robes' that can be changed with culture and situation?

The Eucharist, for one...

[Antony Solomon]

Wow Antony, Thank you for the speech :)

You say the west is hung up on propositional statements etc. but this is changing, at least in the Protestant west. Among the Contemporary and even more among the Emerging arms of the PC (as opposed to Traditional or Conservative arms) people are wrestling with the very same issues that I see discussed here.

Just to draw the discussion out a little farther. You talk about defining things in terms of "how we do what we do", and "family traits", "the common action of Christ in the Spirit", and "drawing it farther along the road"

It seems to me that in all these things it goes back to the fact that there is a Way that defines Christainity. We know that Way is Christ but what are the defining elements of that Way? What is the timeless unchangable essence and what are the merely the 'robes' that can be changed with culture and situation?

Hello Celinda.

Just to talk between ourselves for a moment, since I an a Baptist, recently Calvinist, not yet Orthodox...

I think the Emergent movement has it's positive side, but i also think it is too much an expression of Western culture at the end of its tether. Authority is still the issue, whether it is Anglicans/Episcopalians arguing over what that is, or Reformed/Presbyterian churches arguing over what their confessions actually mean, and how far academic inquiry can go before one falls foul of a presbytery court. In the newer churches, which I have been a part of, the idea of the 'priesthood of all believers' is taken to an extreme, and 'every man ministry' becomes exactly that. Add to that the emphasis on the young: young leaders attracting young people into young churches because the old churches aren't working, aren't changing lives, and I think you have the right desires coming out in the wrong way, as churches break down into ever smaller groups existing in their own little worlds. The thirst is out there, not only in the churches, but in society, for something that works: just go and browse a Jedi forum and see people discussing how to handle anger. But in the West, modernist ideas about authority in the church have got messed up in a society that rejects authority, and it seems the only way to deal with it is to ditch the church, because we have long ago ditched the model of Church as the saved community gathered around the Eucharist. Instead we are gathered around the sermon, or worse, the worship group. We have lost a vision of Christianity as transformative, and of the church as the locus of that transformatoin. Instead we have groups of people who happen to be in the same place at the same time. The Body of Christ is now a body of people, which isn't the same thing.

Yes, there is light along the way. But it is academics who are saying, let's look at the Fathers; while churches are still caught up with choruses, and chatty relevance. You can't go forward by breaking up into ever smaller groups - that way lies sectarianism, isolationism, and strange ideas filtering into the church.

One of the things I like about Orthodoxy is that those who lead and teach are expected to have walked the path that they now call others to follow - and that doesn't mean 3 years at Bible college, 2 years with YWAM, and a commission from some evangelisitc group to go and start a church somewhere. They mean spiritual growth, real spiritual growth, wisdom, knowledge of God, the sort of stuff that makes me realise how much time I have wasted cramming my head with theology, yet still find it easy to get into knock down, and angry, arguments on internet fora.

i know there is spiritual life in the church in the West, but often it is immature; often it is sought in the young, while the grey-head is ignored (I'm not grey); often it has not really been tested, through what the monastics saw as the three fold call of poverty, chastity and prayer, but comes from packing young people off to college and then sticking them into leadership roles because they have a certificate. With 2000 years of church history and thought wiating there, the West needs to plug into it, rather than seeking to make it all de novo. To do this, it needs to recognise what authority really is in the church - and which you will know, no doubt: servant heart, shepherd authority, graceful obedience - and to learn to obey before one can command. While a Western Christian always reserves the right to say, I don't want to do that, I disagree with you, I'm off, then the Church in the West isn't working. We then end up with churches not as transformative centres, but as clubs of like minded people. i was in a church that mistook its conservative culture for Gospel culture. The basis of it's life was, we don't do this or that - be it anything smelling of Roman Catholic, or anything smelling of modern practices, but it had no theology for why we don't do it. Transformation was about becoming rather pinched and gaunt, rather than bursting with life. People want life, and the emergent church is an indication of this, but we in the west have a problem with authority too, and until we sort that out, we won't advance, merely splinter into churches of One.

Sorry, longwinded again, but I have been frustrated on my previous board at how little people see beyond their horizons, espeically Protestants.

[Herman Blaydoe]

It seems to me that in all these things it goes back to the fact that there is a Way that defines Christainity. We know that Way is Christ but what are the defining elements of that Way? What is the timeless unchangable essence and what are the merely the 'robes' that can be changed with culture and situation?

Two things certainly pop into my little brain:

The Creed and the Sacraments (Mysteries). I remember a long discussion I had with a woman who is now Orthodox along with her family. At the time she belonged to a Protestant church that specifically billed itself as "non-creedal". I think modern Episcopalians fall into this category as well. And there are many Protestant denominations that specifically deny Sacramental theology, although as Celinda points out, this is changing in places as groups of Protestants rediscover the Fathers and the real "Early Church" in opposition to their modern reconstructions.

But we are certainly much closer to any denominations that can at least acknowledge the Creed and the Sacraments. This gives us a solid base at least to build on.

[Antony Solomon]

Two things certainly pop into my little brain:

The Creed and the Sacraments (Mysteries). I remember a long discussion I had with a woman who is now Orthodox along with her family. At the time she belonged to a Protestant church that specifically billed itself as "non-creedal". I think modern Episcopalians fall into this category as well. And there are many Protestant denominations that specifically deny Sacramental theology, although as Celinda points out, this is changing in places as groups of Protestants rediscover the Fathers and the real "Early Church" in opposition to their modern reconstructions.

But we are certainly much closer to any denominations that can at least acknowledge the Creed and the Sacraments. This gives us a solid base at least to build on.


On the latter, would that be merely the central importance of the sacraments, or a specific understanding of them? Outside of the Quakers, i don't know of any group that doesn't have the communion, but outside of Catholicism and those linked to it, you will generally only find memorial communion. Is that enough? Can that be called a Church in the full sense, a proto-church, or something else?

[Nina]

- and that is the nature of what is meant by 'the Church'?
John

"Members of the Orthodox church are all and only those of the faithful that believe and do not doubt the flawless Faith of Christ the Saviour and all that was passed down, preached and interpreted by Christ, the Apostles and the Holy Ecumenical Synods. " St. Thositheos

[Antonios]

On the latter, would that be merely the central importance of the sacraments, or a specific understanding of them? Outside of the Quakers, i don't know of any group that doesn't have the communion, but outside of Catholicism and those linked to it, you will generally only find memorial communion. Is that enough? Can that be called a Church in the full sense, a proto-church, or something else?

Any group who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instead regard this most important part of sacramental living as simply a 'memorial service' is outside the Apostolic Church. This is a rudimentary Christian teaching, first initiated by the Lord Himself in the Mystical Last Supper and passed down by the Apostles.

[Celinda Grace]

.

I think you have the right desires coming out in the wrong way,... The thirst is out there, ... But in the West, modernist ideas about authority in the church have got messed up in a society that rejects authority, and it seems the only way to deal with it is to ditch the church, because we have long ago ditched the model of Church as the saved community gathered around the Eucharist. Instead we are gathered around the sermon, or worse, the worship group. We have lost a vision of Christianity as transformative, and of the church as the locus of that transformatoin. Instead we have groups of people who happen to be in the same place at the same time. The Body of Christ is now a body of people, which isn't the same thing....

i know there is spiritual life in the church in the West, but often it is immature; ... People want life, and the emergent church is an indication of this, but we in the west have a problem with authority too, and until we sort that out, we won't advance, merely splinter into churches of One.



Antony,

Everything you say is right and I recognize the problems, but I tend to be a foward looking person. I focus on how can we fix things, not what is wrong. Where God is opening doors, not on where are they closed.

The thirst itself is a huge open door, and so, in it's own way, is the immaturity. The Traditional Church thought they had it all together. They thought they were IT and so the doors were closed. There is a great deal of insecurity in the Emerging Church. They don't know who they are, they don't know where they are going. They are full of questions that they have no answers to. I can't help but believe that God can use a situation like this much more so then what existed previously.

The authority issue is a huge problem, but this is a generation not simply in rebellion against authority but in many cases deeply wounded by abused religious authority.


.
One of the things I like about Orthodoxy is that those who lead and teach are expected to have walked the path that they now call others to follow - and that doesn't mean 3 years at Bible college, 2 years with YWAM, and a commission from some evangelisitc group to go and start a church somewhere. They mean spiritual growth, real spiritual growth, wisdom, knowledge of God, the sort of stuff that makes me realise how much time I have wasted cramming my head with theology, yet still find it easy to get into knock down, and angry, arguments on internet fora.

It is exactly this in the traditional PC that has caused the situation that exists. Do you see God's grace in this? For every sin we fall into we wound ourselves and it drives us to change and start looking for God again.


Must Orthodoxy spread by denouncing and conquering the West, or by drawing it further along the road that, by the Grace of God, it has started down?

Orthodoxy will not spread by conquering the West because Christ does not come to conquer but to heal and in as much as any of us are trying to do Christ's work in some way that is not Christ's Way, it will not work. He woos us, He does not drag us into the kingdom. Love comes down and meets people where they are at. God did not demand that we come up to heaven. He became a man in order to feed us.

I think, though, that you and I and the other Protestants or prior Protestants here are testimoney to the fact that if the Orthodox Church lives up to being truly Orthodox, to being truly Christ-like, unity will happen. It does not have to be forced for people will be drawn to the aroma of Christ where they find it.

But if the authority issue is not settled. In as much as the Church remains legalistic and forceful about it's authority, and defining itself as an authority it will not accomplish its purpose. People naturally rebel against abused authority and naturally respond to authority meeted out in Christ like humility and love.

[Antonios]

Orthodoxy will not spread by conquering the West because Christ does not come to conquer but to heal and in as much as any of us are trying to do Christ's work in some way that is not Christ's Way, it will not work. He woos us, He does not drag us into the kingdom. Love comes down and meets people where they are at. God did not demand that we come up to heaven. He became a man in order to feed us.

Beautifully said, Celinda.

[Antony Solomon]

I second that opinion.

[Celinda Grace]

Any group who deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instead regard this most important part of sacramental living as simply a 'memorial service' is outside the Apostolic Church. This is a rudimentary Christian teaching, first initiated by the Lord Himself in the Mystical Last Supper and passed down by the Apostles.

As I was thinking about what draws me to the Orthodox Church. It struck me that at the core of Protestantism is a desire and will to KNOW Christ and introduce Him to others, but that at the core of Orthodoxy is the desire and will to BE Christ and make others Christ. The different way the Eucharist is regarded reflects this. There is a difference in interpretation because there is a difference in approach.

In this, I recognize that the Orthodox Church has the truth of things.

However, in living out the desire to know Christ one becomes more like Christ as long as one is given the freedom to grow. This freedom is available to those who do not bog down in trying to define themselves by a set of beliefs or practices. In my particular sphere this freedom is being lived out.

[Antonios]

Celina,

Your post again goes to the very heart of the matter, the real difference. We are called to be in Christ. We are called to be partakers of the divine nature, from glory to glory. The Church is the spiritual hospital which heals us, through the Holy Spirit, to be transformed and transfigured into the Body of Christ. This is the awesome mystery of the sacraments! The sacramental life is the path to true freedom- freedom of soul, mind, and body.

Freedom is not obtained by creating our own beliefs, suit to fit what or how we interpert the Gospel of Christ. In a sense, it is precisely those very people who are preoccupied or 'bogged' down trying to define or defend themselves. True freedom is submitting to God's will. True freedom is to respect and obey our Father and Mother, that is, the Holy Trinity and the Holy Church. The Orthodox Christian does not need to define their set of beliefs or practices. These are the beliefs of the Apostles. These are the practices of the Fathers of the Church. Our freedom is in our submission to Christ and His Church, and our witness and communion of the Bloodless Sacrifice performed at every Divine Liturgy.

-Antonios

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Who was it who defined 'originality' as 'being faithful to the original'? That would seem relevant to our discussion here, somehow.

In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

However, in living out the desire to know Christ one becomes more like Christ as long as one is given the freedom to grow. This freedom is available to those who do not bog down in trying to define themselves by a set of beliefs or practices. In my particular sphere this freedom is being lived out.

Freedom from ... what exactly?

I can't help at times but suspect that "freedom" may be over-rated. The unyoked ox may be "free" but Christ says to take up His easy yoke. Freedom is not a word that occurs often in Holy Scripture.

[Andrew]

Saint Silouan discussed freedom... I recommend you check out Saint Silouan the Athonite, by Elder Sophrony.

True freedom is ontological, is freedom of being. What most men want is license, not true freedom. True freedom comes when we become dispassionate; then we are free from the chains of sin and the passions. But even greater freedom is found in theosis, when man becomes like Christ, and is free to partake of God in loving communion. The law of sin and death has no hold on him who is perfect in Christ.

The path to freedom is very difficult, and that is why many settle for mere license to sin, or self will, or whatever.

The freedom to believe whatever doctrinal formulation one comes up with, or to worship in a way that suits one's taste (ie Protestantism) is not freedom. It is man bound to self will and egoism. Only in obedience can man become free.

[Andrew]

And as a further note, authority and obedience are not opposed to love. Our hierarchs and clergy bear our burdens and sin in a mystical way. And obedience is freely given out of love, and the spiritual father guides the spiritual child towards health out of love. But his authority has an absolute aspect if one wishes to be healed, just as a doctor's authority in medicine is not disputed by the patient if he wants to be healed.

[Mina Soliman]

Sometimes I feel that in Orthodoxy, there's something we lack. We are able to find out what is not truth and consider it heresy and condemn it with the people who represent it. But many people have complained to some Orthodox communities that shun people, and that is not characteristic of what the Body of Christ should be.

More than anything, indeed, our Church is a hospital, both to sinners and heretics. The love factor of the Church opens boundaries to bring people in to the Truth. Notice, it opens the boundaries, or spills the seeds so to speak. I've read a little booklet by a Coptic monk, Fr. Matta el Maskeen (people will recognize him, especially EO's, for his famous book on Orthodox Spiritual Prayer). He said that to reduce Orthodox Church to dogma and faith (including sacramental practices) reduces the Infinite nature of the Church. He put a stress on love so much and our relationship with the heterodox, that he mentions as much as dogma is important and should be preserved, the love factor must be more important to spread that light and salt to the world. It's almost like that "hate the sin, love the sinner" type of message, but extends this to dogma as well.

It makes me wonder why +Kallistos Ware has set up the formula where "we know where the Church is, but not where it isn't." Are people of innocent ignorance of the Truth included? Are people that we shunned and not given a chance to shine our lamps on them included? Premature babies? etc. Sometimes, it might be that sinner or heretic's fault for losing salvation, and sometimes, we have to acknowledge our own fault as well.

Someone mentioned on TV that St. John Chrysostom said "schism is worse than heresy." I'm not sure where that is quoted, but I can see perhaps that it's worse simply because a certain community of the Church could possibly be the source of an unnecessary schism that needs to be addressed in the Church Herself.

God bless.

[Antony Solomon]

Friends, you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

For the West, freedom has become, 'freedom from...', and usually goes hand in hand with cries about 'my rights'. We end up in a society of six feet high garden fences so we can be free from each other, and as i said, with a Church of One. From my Orthodox reading, freedom is something we attain. Freedom from sin is not enough, it is freedom For... that matters: freedom for God, freedom to be like Christ, freedom to be for others. The Anglican liturgy speaks somewhere - John help me out here - about obedience bieng our true freedom. The West atomises, and thinks that is true freedom; the East - or better, Chrsitianity - brings together in communion, and that is TRUE freedom, becaue that is what we were created for, to love God, and to love our neighbour. If the hierarchy forget that, then the tyranny of authority ensues - as we see in politics - and then rebellion, and then individualism. Let us pray for those in authority as Paul tells us; let us esteem those in authority over us, as Paul tells us; but all in love, especially love to him who took the lower place himself, that he might be exalted to the highest seat.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Sometimes I feel that in Orthodoxy, there's something we lack. We are able to find out what is not truth and consider it heresy and condemn it with the people who represent it. But many people have complained to some Orthodox communities that shun people, and that is not characteristic of what the Body of Christ should be.

No communal group is "perfect". We are indeed patients in the spiritual hospital. We, as individuals, most certainly "lack" one needful thing or another. We are all still in the process of healing, we are children growing in Grace. We are unfinished projects. We are walking construction zones and sometimes hardhats are required.

But I take issue that in Orthodoxy, we lack anything. What is happening is that we have not yet assimilated everything that the Church has to offer. It is all there, even if certain of us have yet to take advantage of it. You will find cliques and "closed" communities everywhere, this is NOT something that is pecular to "Orthodoxy".

[Antony Solomon]

No communal group is "perfect". We are indeed patients in the spiritual hospital. We, as individuals, most certainly "lack" one needful thing or another. We are all still in the process of healing, we are children growing in Grace. We are unfinished projects. We are walking construction zones and sometimes hardhats are required.

But I take issue that in Orthodoxy, we lack anything. What is happening is that we have not yet assimilated everything that the Church has to offer. It is all there, even if certain of us have yet to take advantage of it. You will find cliques and "closed" communities everywhere, this is NOT something that is pecular to "Orthodoxy".

Herman is right. To err is human; to draw lines and boundaries between them and us, to cast out, to denounce, to put down, is human. This will happen everywhere. In that sense Orthodoxy is a human phenomenon just like all else, and on a level with all other Christian groups. The question is, is that ALL there is?

[Anthony]

Who was it who defined 'originality' as 'being faithful to the original'? That would seem relevant to our discussion here, somehow.

C.S.Lewis says something like: "He who is the origin of all things cannot start being, in the popular sense of the word, original."

I don't know if that's what you meant, but C.S.Lewis is usually good value anyway.

[Celinda Grace]

I realize my mention of freedom has stirred up a hornets nest. Just to clarify.

There are two extremes to avoid. One is to believe whatever one wants to believe and there are many in the more liberal Protestant Churches that have this problem.

I come from the more conservative side where legalism tends to be a problem. Mina brought out this problem. When dogma, a rational understanding of God, closes boundaries it is legalism. The legalist mistakes knowledge about God for knowledge of God. The legalist grabs hold of their dogma and makes it an idol rather then allowing knowledge about God to be an icon that leads us to God. There are many in the PC that make doctrine and idol rather then an icon and the freedom I was talking about was the freedom to let one's understanding of God grow rather then latching on and 'worshiping' our dogma.

[Owen Jones]

The Church represents God's presence in and to man and all created things, and it represents all of mankind to God. The Church exists in a realm in between the two. It's physical presence -- institutional presence, etc. -- is like the physicality of an icon, which in no way exhausts its meaning, purpose and power or capacity to be misunderstood or misused...

[Rick H.]

Dear Celinda, and All:

When you say so forcefully:




The legalist grabs hold of their dogma and makes it an idol . . .



I must without hesitation add to this both the Bible and the Church. We do not worship the Bible do we? And, as well, we do not worship the Church do we?

In Christ,
Rick

PS Dear Owen, I just read your post above [that wasn't there when I started typing mine], and I really would appreciate it if you would wait until *after* I ask the question to answer it! ;)

[Mary]

The legalist grabs hold of their dogma and makes it an idol rather then allowing knowledge about God to be an icon that leads us to God.

Hmmmm.... The way you phrased that created an interesting picture in my mind and it seemed to help me define a 'legalist' (to myself).

The picture is a bridge above a huge chasm - not a fancy, strong, metal bridge, but a simple one with ropes on the sides and planks of wood on the bottom. On the other side is the Friend who everyone would like to go be with. There are different kinds of people crossing. There are those who are sure-footed and they just step onto the middle of the bridge and need nothing to hold on to, they walk steadily and confidently and do not easily fall. There are those who are filled with dread because of the chasm below, they know they can trust the bridge so they throw themselves on it and crawl on hands and knees and grip the floor as tightly as they can. Then there are others who need to understand the strength of the ropes, they study it closely, and they are satisfied, the hold on to the ropes and walk across, but they never let go of the ropes. Perhaps there are other kinds of people, but I haven't identified them yet.

Anyway - they're all headed in the same direction, they are all on the Right bridge, but they're all crossing it in different ways, because of the strengths and weaknesses in them. All of them are going to get across if they don't stop moving, and all of them are equally in danger of becoming 'legalists'. Instead of focusing on their own journey, if they start looking at how the others are crossing and thinking they're own way is better, they have immediately become legalistic.

We all need boundaries. Some need it more than others. Without them, we'll be wandering all over the place and never find our way home! And not all sets of boundaries are the right ones. There's only one Bridge to God. So it's important to find it, define it and submit to it - or be bound by it.

Forgive me for speaking as if I have something worthwhile to say.

In Christ,
Mary.

[Antonios]

Sometimes I feel that in Orthodoxy, there's something we lack. We are able to find out what is not truth and consider it heresy and condemn it with the people who represent it. But many people have complained to some Orthodox communities that shun people, and that is not characteristic of what the Body of Christ should be.

This is true, Mina. But the problem does not lie in Orthodoxy, but rather its members, who are as much sinners as any other group. The Way is clear, it has been revealed. Its how we as its fallen members communicate it which is often the root source of the problems...

[Antonios]

Forgive me for speaking as if I have something worthwhile to say.

Mary, thank you for this. It truly is something very worthwhile.

I would like to add another angle and say that the bridge is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Christian faith. Each of its members cross (or don't cross) the chasm on this bridge. There are others who try to find their own way across the chasm (jumping, looking for a secret side path, handgliding, etc.). Will is get them across to the other side? Maybe. God only knows. I do not doubt the power and mercy of God. God has given us each of us the freedom to choose (or not choose) how and if to cross. Because of our weakness, He has provided this bridge. This is the path of the Orthodox Christian. This is the surest way. Not without danger, of course. But the surest way...

[Andrew]

The Church represents God's presence in and to man and all created things, and it represents all of mankind to God. The Church exists in a realm in between the two. It's physical presence -- institutional presence, etc. -- is like the physicality of an icon, which in no way exhausts its meaning, purpose and power or capacity to be misunderstood or misused...

I don't know, I think my understanding is different from what you have written... we might just be saying the same thing differently. We'll see.

The Church is truly the organic flesh and blood of Christ who sits at the right hand of the Father. We are grafted into his flesh mystically (both physically, noetically, in spirit and all our being). Our struggle is to fully become one with him. Some of us will not truly become one with him, and fall off like a wart. Others become one with him and help pump blood to us who are weakly connected, to nourish us who are weak members of the Body helping us to grow and take part in the actual functions of the mystical body. But truly, this is not a "representation" of God, it is his theanthropic Body itself. It is his Flesh and Blood. I do not think this is a mere metaphor, I think is true and utter reality, just as the Eucharist is.

I think St. Justin of Serbia's writings are a wonderful illustration of this mystical reality of the Church.

But maybe what you mean by "represent" is like how the Eucharist "represents" Christ's Body and Blood. Is this the case? I don't want to misread you.

[Nina]

Thank you Herman, Antonios, Mary and Andrew!

St. Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers
By Father George Florovsky

"Following THE HOLY FATHERS" ... It was usual in the Ancient Church to introduce doctrinal statements by phrases like this. The Decree of Chalcedon opens precisely with these very words. The Seventh Ecumenical Council introduces its decision concerning the Holy Icons in a more elaborate way: "Following the Divinely inspired teaching of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the Catholic Church." The didaskalia of the Fathers is the formal and normative term of reference.

Now, this was much more than just an "appeal to antiquity." Indeed, the Church always stresses the permanence of her faith through the ages, from the very beginning. This identity, since the Apostolic times, is the most conspicuous sign and token of right faith-always the same. [...]

The Church is "Apostolic" indeed. But the Church is also "Patristic." She is intrinsically "the Church of the Fathers." These two "notes" cannot be separated. Only by being "Patristic" is the Church truly "Apostolic." The witness of the Fathers is much more than simply a historic feature, a voice from the past. Let us quote another hymn from the office of the Three Hierarchs. "By the word of knowledge you have composed the dogmas which the fisher men have established first in simple words, in knowledge by the power of the Spirit, for thus our simple piety had to acquire composition." There are, as it were, two basic stages in the proclamation of the Christian faith. "Our simple faith had to acquire composition." There was an inner urge, an inner logic, an internal necessity, in this transition from kerygma to dogma.Indeed, the teaching of the Fathers, and the dogma of the Church, are still the same "simple message" which has been once delivered and deposited, once for ever, by the Apostles. But now it is, as it were, properly and fully articulated. The Apostolic preaching is kept alive in the Church, not only merely preserved. In this sense, the teaching of the Fathers is a permanent category of Christian existence, a constant and ultimate measure and criterion of right faith. Fathers are not only witnesses of the old faith, testes antiquitatis. They are rather witnesses of the true faith, testes veritatis. "The mind of the Fathers" is an intrinsic term of reference in Orthodox theology, no less than the word of Holy Scripture, and indeed never separated from it. As it has been well said, "the Catholic Church of all ages is not merely a daughter of the Church of the Fathers—she is and remains the Church of the Fathers." ...

[Nina]

When dogma, a rational understanding of God [...]
the freedom I was talking about was the freedom to let one's understanding of God grow rather then latching on and 'worshiping' our dogma.

You are talking about Saints and Fathers here, since as you will see below, only they possessed during earthly life an understanding and knowledge of God. Therefore we can not say that Saints/Fathers worship the dogma. They lived it because the "Knowledge of God is not intellectual, but existential".

Knowledge of God according to St. Gregory Palamas (Orthodox Psychotherapy)

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos

Now that we have explained the teaching of St. Isaac the Syrian about the three degrees of knowledge, we can go on to look at knowledge of God according to the Athonite saint Gregory Palamas. When a person rises from bodily knowledge to the soul's knowledge and from that to spiritual knowledge, then he sees God and possesses knowledge of God, which is his salvation. Knowledge of God, as will be explained further on, is not intellectual, but existential. That is, one's whole being is filled with this knowledge of God. But in order to attain it, one's heart must have been purified, that is, the soul, nous and heart must have been healed. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matt.5,8). Let us look at things more analytically.

As I have indicated, Barlaam insisted that knowledge of God depends not on vision of God but on one's understanding. He said that we can acquire knowledge of God through philosophy, and therefore he considered the prophets and apostles who saw the uncreated light, to be below the philosophers. He called the uncreated light sensory, created, and "inferior to our understanding".
However, St. Gregory Palamas, a bearer of the Tradition and a man of revelation, supported the opposite view. In his theology he presented the teaching of the Church that uncreated light, that is, the vision of God, is not simply a symbolic vision, nor sensory and created, nor inferior to understanding, but it is deification. Through deification man is deemed worthy of seeing God. And this deification is not an abstract state, but a union of man with God. That is to say, the man who beholds the uncreated light sees it because he is united with God. He sees it with his inner eyes, and also with his bodily eyes, which, however, have been altered by God's action. Consequently theoria is union with God. And this union is knowledge of God. At this time one is granted knowledge of God, which is above human knowledge and above the senses. St. Gregory explains this whole theology in places throughout his writings. But since it is not our intention in this chapter to make a systematic exposition of his whole teaching about the knowledge of God, we shall limit ourselves to analysing the central point in it as it is presented in his basic work `On the Holy Hesychasts', known as the Triads. Again we must add that we shall not present the whole teaching as it is set out in that book, but only the central points. After each quotation we shall give the reference.

Here is a characteristic passage in which he briefly presents this teaching: "One who has cleared his soul of all connection with things of this world, who has detached himself from everything by keeping the commandments and by the dispassion that this brings, and who has passed beyond all cognitive activity through continuous, sincere and immaterial prayer, and who has been abundantly illuminated by the inaccessible light in an inconceivable union, he alone, becoming light, contemplating by the light and beholding the light, in the vision and enjoyment of this light recognises truly that God is transcendently radiant and beyond comprehension; he glorifies God not only beyond his nous's human power of understanding, for many created things are beyond that, but even beyond that marvelous union which is the only means by which the nous is united with what is beyond intelligible things, `imitating divinely the supracelestial nouses'" (2,3,57). We find the central teaching of St. Gregory in this passage. In order to attain vision of the uncreated light, a person must cut off every connection between the soul and what is below, detach himself from everything by keeping Christ's commandments and through the dispassion which comes from that, he must transcend all cognitive activity "through continuous and sincere and immaterial prayer". Therefore he must have been healed already, through keeping Christ's commandments and through freeing his soul from all sinful connection with created things. He is illuminated by the inaccessible light "abundantly through an inconceivable union". He sees God through union. Thus he becomes light and sees by the light. Seeing the uncreated light, he recognises God and acquires knowledge of Him, because now "he recognises truly that God is above nature and beyond comprehension".

St. Gregory also develops this teaching at other places in the Triads. The vision of God, theoria of the uncreated light, is not a sensory vision but a deification of man. Speaking of Moses' vision of God "face-to-face and not in enigmas", he recalls the passage in St. Maximus the Confessor that says: "Deification is an enhypostatic and direct illumination which has no beginning but appears in those worthy as something exceeding their comprehension. It is indeed a mystical union with God, beyond nous and reason in the age when creatures will no longer know corruption" (3,1,28;CWS p.84). So the vision of the uncreated light is man's deification. He sees God through deification and not through cultivating intelligence. The vision of uncreated light is called a deifying gift. It is not a gift of created human nature, but of the Holy Spirit. "Thus the deifying gift of the Spirit is a mysterious light which transforms into light those who receive its wealth. He not only fills them with eternal light but also grants them knowledge and life appropriate to God" (3,1,35;CWS p.90). Thus the vision of God is not external but comes through deification (2,3,25). This deification is union and communion with God. According to St. Gregory, "Vision of the uncreated light is not simply abstraction and negation, it is a union and a divinisation which occurs mystically and ineffably by the grace of God, after the stripping away of everything from here below which imprints itself on the nous, or rather after the cessation of all noetic activity; it is something which goes beyond abstraction" (1,3,17;CWS p.34f). The contemplation of uncreated light is "by the divinising communion of the Spirit" (1,3,5;CWS p.33). "So the contemplation of this light is a union, even though it does not endure in the imperfect: but is the union with this light other than a vision?" (2,3,36;CWS p.65)

St. Gregory speaks of ecstasy. But this ecstasy, in patristic teaching, has nothing to do with the ecstasy of Pythia and the other religions. Ecstasy comes when, in prayer, the nous abandons every connection with created things: first "with everything evil and bad, then with neutral things" (2,3,35;CWS p.65). Ecstasy is mainly withdrawal from the opinion of the world and the flesh. With sincere prayer the nous "abandons all created things" (2,3,35;CWS p.65). This ecstasy is higher than abstract theology, that is, than rational theology, and it belongs only to those who have attained dispassion. But it is not yet union. That is to say, the ecstasy which is unceasing prayer of the nous, in which one's nous has continuous remembrance of God and has no relation with the `world of sin' is not yet union with God. This union comes about when the Paraclete "illuminates from on high the man who attains in prayer the stage which is superior to the highest natural possibilities and who is awaiting the promise of the Father, and by His revelation ravishes him to the contemplation of the light" (2,3,35;CWS p.65). Illumination by God is what shows His union with man.

Vision, deification and union with God are the things which offer man existential knowledge of God. Then man possesses real knowledge of God. The deifying gift of the Holy Spirit, which is a mysterious light, transforms into divine light those who have attained it and not only fills them with eternal light, "but also grants them a knowledge and a life appropriate to God" (3,1,35;CWS p.89). In this state a person possesses knowledge of God. In reply to Barlaam's teaching that God is known by the greatest contemplators, the philosophers, and that knowledge of God transmitted "by noetic illumination...is by no means true" (2,3,78), St. Gregory Palamas declares: "God makes Himself known not only through all that is but also through what is not, through transcendence, that is, through uncreated things, and also through an eternal light that transcends all beings". This knowledge, he says, is offered today as a kind of pledge to those who are worthy of it and which "illuminates them unendingly in the unending age". That is just why the saints' vision of God is true, "and he who calls it false has strayed from the divine knowledge of God" (2,3,78). Thus anyone who ignores and disregards the vision of God, which offers true knowledge, is in reality ignorant of God.
These things show that the vision of God, deification, union and knowledge of God are closely bound together. They cannot be understood apart from one another. Breaking this unity takes man further away from knowledge of God. The basis of Orthodox epistemology is illumination and God's revelation within the purified heart of man.

As we have seen, knowledge of God is beyond human knowledge. Vision of the uncreated light surpasses all epistemological activity and is "beyond sight and knowledge" (2,3,50). Since vision of the uncreated light is offered to the hearts of the faithful and perfect, that is why "it is superior to the light of knowledge" (2,3,18;CWS p.63). And not only is it superior to the light of human knowledge "from Hellenic studies", but also the light of this theoria differs from "the light that comes from the Holy Scriptures", since the light of the Scriptures may be compared to "a lamp that shines in an obscure place, whereas vision of the uncreated light resembles the morning star which shines in the day, that is to say, the sun" (2,3,18;CWS p.63). The grace of deification thus transcends nature, virtue and human knowledge (3,1,27).

The vision of the uncreated light and the knowledge that comes from this are not an unfolding of the rational power, they are not perfection of rational nature, as Barlaam asserted, but they are superior to reason. They are knowledge offered by God to the pure in heart. Anyone who asserts that the deifying gift is a development of the rational nature puts himself in opposition to Christ's Gospel. If contemplation were a natural gift, then all people should be gods, one less and another more. But "the deified saints transcend nature", they are engendered by God, God gave them power to become "children of God" (3,1,30;CWS p.85).

The vision of the uncreated light, which offers knowledge of God to man, is sensory and suprasensory. The bodily eyes are reshaped, so they see the uncreated light, "this mysterious light, inaccessible, immaterial, uncreated, deifying, eternal", this "radiance of the Divine Nature, this glory of the divinity, this beauty of the heavenly kingdom" (3,1,22;CWS p.80). Palamas asks: "Do you see that light is inaccessible to senses which are not transformed by the Spirit?" (2,3,22). St. Maximus, whose teaching is cited by St. Gregory, says that the Apostles saw the uncreated Light "by a transformation of the activity of their senses, produced in them by the Spirit" (2.3.22). Vision of the uncreated Light and the knowledge which comes from it transcend not only nature and human knowledge, but virtue as well. Virtue and the imitation of God prepare us for the divine union, but the mysterious union itself is effected by grace (3,1,27;CWS p.83).

Thus deification, which is the goal of the spiritual life, is a manifestation of God to the pure heart of man. This vision of the uncreated Light is what creates spiritual delight in the soul. For, according to St. Gregory, evidence of that light is that the soul ceases to give itself over to wrong pleasures and passions, and that it acquires peace and quietening of thoughts, and rest and spiritual joy, contempt for human glory, humility joined with secret rejoicing, hatred of the world, love of heavenly things, or rather love of the God of Heaven alone, and a vision of uncreated light even if one's eyes should be covered or plucked out (3,1,36;CWS p.90). From what has been said it is clear that the end of man's cure is vision of the uncreated light. But since in this chapter we are speaking about theoria, we may also look at Palamas' teaching that there are many degrees of theoria. He says that this theoria has a beginning, and the things that follow on from this beginning differ in degrees of darkness or clarity, but there is never an end, for its progress, like that of the rapture in revelation, is infinite. Illumination is one thing and continuous vision of light is another, and still another is the vision of things in that light whereby even things far off are accessible to the eyes, and the future is shown as already existing (2,3,35;CWS p.65). So there are degrees of theoria, and with it, degrees of knowledge.

At this point we may also look at the teaching of St. Peter of Damascus about the eight stages of theoria (Philokalia 3,108). The first seven belong to this age, while the eighth belongs to the age to come. The first theoria is knowledge of the trials and tribulations of this life. The second is "knowledge of our own faults and of God's bounty". The third is knowledge of the terrible things before and after death. The fourth is deep understanding of the life led by our Lord Jesus in this world and of His disciples and the other saints, that is to say, the words and actions of the martyrs and the holy Fathers. The fifth is knowledge of the nature and flux of things. The sixth is theoria of created beings, or knowledge and understanding of God's visible creation. The seventh is understanding of God's spiritual creation, that is to say, of the angels. The eighth is knowledge concerning God, or what we call `theology'. Consequently theoria has many stages and degrees, and many must come before vision of the uncreated light, which is "the beauty of the age to come", "the food of the heavens". Among the degrees of theoria are remembrance of death, which is a gift from God, unceasing prayer, the inspiration to keep Christ's commandments fully, knowledge of our spiritual poverty, that is to say, understanding of our sins and passions, and the repentance following it. All these things come about through the operation of divine grace. Certainly perfect theoria is vision of the uncreated light, which itself is differentiated into vision and continuous vision, as Palamas says (3,1,30).

So the purification which takes place by the grace of God creates the necessary preconditions for attaining that theoria which is communion with God, deification of man, and knowledge of God. The ascetic method of the Church leads to this point. It is not based on human criteria and it does not aim to make the person `nice and good', but to heal him perfectly and for him to achieve communion with God. As long as a man is far from communion and union with God, he has not yet attained his salvation. The spiritually trained person who sees the uncreated light is said, in the language of the Fathers, to be `deified'. This expression is used by St. Dionysios the Areopagite, St. John of Damascus, and repeatedly, as we have seen, by St. Gregory Palamas (3,1,30;CWS p.85f). The healing of the soul, nous and heart leads a person to the vision of God and makes him know the divine life. This knowledge is man's salvation. We must pray fervently for God to grant us to reach this knowledge of God. The exhortation is clear: "Come, let us ascend into the mountain of the Lord, even to the house of our God, and behold the glory of His transfiguration, glory of the Only-begotten of the Father. Let us receive light from His light, and with uplifted spirits let us for ever sing the praises of the consubstantial Trinity". Here we rise and sing: "Thou wast transfigured upon the mountain, O Christ our God, showing Thy glory to Thy disciples as far as they were able to bear it. At the intercessions of the Mother of God, make Thine everlasting light shine forth also upon us sinners, O Giver of light, glory to Thee."

*U mine

[Andrew]

The nonOrthodox must understand that dogma is not a propositional statement, but an verbal iconic expression as a result of participation within the life of the Trinity. True theology is about an encounter with God. Dogma is the outward expression of the inward experience... it points towards, gaurds, and defines in limited human language the ineffable mysteries that we are called to enter into in humility with our hearts.

[Celinda Grace]

Wow,

I missed a great discussion yesterday. I love Owen's statement


The Church represents God's presence in and to man and all created things, and it represents all of mankind to God. The Church exists in a realm in between the two. It's physical presence -- institutional presence, etc. -- is like the physicality of an icon, which in no way exhausts its meaning, purpose and power or capacity to be misunderstood or misused...

The church is Christ's body, and like Christ himself when he lived makes the invisible God visible. "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being,..." Heb 1:3

Mary,

I love your picture of the bridge and have pictured my own journey similarly, although with slightly different symbology. I see the bridge as Christ (although to say it is the Church if understood rightly is much the same) I see the ropes as things like the church rules or dogma that keep us safe but if we wish to walk freely we cannot grab hold of and cling to one particular way of doing or understanding. Usually as young Christians we grip the ropes tightly and it is as we grow that we learn to trust the bridge. I never thought of the fact that we can bog down watching other people too. Thanks for the thought.


Nina,

Thanks so much for these long quotes. I think I need to copy them and spend some time trying to digest it.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

The nonOrthodox must understand that dogma is not a propositional statement, but an verbal iconic expression as a result of participation within the life of the Trinity. True theology is about an encounter with God. Dogma is the outward expression of the inward experience... it points towards, gaurds, and defines in limited human language the ineffable mysteries that we are called to enter into in humility with our hearts.

And as the basis of this is knowledge of Christ as a Person. This word knowledge has become convoluted in our time due to the way in which it has become so arbitrary. This is the result of going for so many centuries now detaching the anchor points of knowledge from a more stable & divine way of knowing. The Church never rejected the secondary ways of knowledge. But it did always clearly say that these had to to be grounded in divine knowledge to avoid falling into what is arbitrary.

We come to know the Person of Christ through the Church because the Church is His Body. Everything we encounter within the Church from Her creeds to the services and icons is genuine because these are actual expressions of Christ Himself. And we know that they are true because in our encounter with them we experience Christ Himself.

This however is a learning experience. No one can come to know Christ fully or immediately due to our own sinfulness and even human limitations. Thus the Church is always a place where we are taught the proper way to encounter the Person of Christ. And in many ways this most perfectly expresses what the word Orthodox means. The correct ways of encountering Christ so that we do not mistake delusion for reality.

Surely knowing the bounds of the Church is connected to knowing Christ. Christ is the God of all but our calling within the Church is to know Him as He knows us. So again something most genuine is involved in this knowledge and not something just general. In fact without pursuing this genuine knowledge of Christ, without having this as a conscious point to aim at, there is a fundamental betrayal of Christ's calling, for we are called to know Him for Who He really is.

In effect we come to know where the bounds of the Church are through a recognition of Christ as a Person. The language to describe this is never exhaustive but nevertheless this language does describe an actual reality of the encounter with Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Bratislav]

We come to know the Person of Christ through the Church because the Church is His Body. Everything we encounter within the Church from Her creeds to the services and icons is genuine because these are actual expressions of Christ Himself. And we know that they are true because in our encounter with them we experience Christ Himself.


Does not Christ "express Himself" through all of creation. Is He not seen in the "reasons" of all things? And in this way can it not be said that creation as a whole- from rocks and water to angels and men- is the Church, or is a church?

It would seem in fact that the Church exists in degrees and levels of sorts starting with all created things visible and invisible and moving through to all rational beings and then to all men and finally to all men baptized into Christ Jesus. I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list of the "concentric rings of ecclesial reality" but a demonstration of the general idea I am putting out here for consideration.

-In Christ

[Rick H.]

"concentric rings of ecclesial reality"



Dear Bratislav,

Aren't you the same person who suggested the idea of a "spiral" on the Heart of Salvation! thread? :) Great post here by the way, I am looking forward to Father Raphael's response.

In Christ,
Rick

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

Here is part of a post that I made to another thread. I think this really belongs here in this cornucopia of thoughts on the church, so I would like to share it here.

In Christ,
Rick




I was reminded of another simple quote that I would like to share now:


"We make an idol of truth itself, for truth apart from charity [love] is not god, but his image and an idol that we must not love or worship. Still less must we love or worship its opposite, which is falsehood."--Blaise Pascal


When we talk about making an idol out of dogma, or the church, or the bible (or truth) it is very easy to slip into the metaphysical and or talk in circles. But, the above Pascal quote speaks plainly to this issue. Hopefully, we are not divided about what he has said here so well. Sometimes the 'humpty dumpty' routine is funny to watch, but sometimes it is not as it relates to such things as idol making and truth together. Either way, as Herman has said so well, may we approach truth with an open mind.

In Christ,
Rick

[Herman Blaydoe]

It is worth mentioning, I think, that Msr. Pascal was not an Orthodox Father. I would want his specific definition of "truth" before I go too much further however.

"If you would debate with me sir, define your terms!" Thoreau

[Antony Solomon]

It is worth mentioning, I think, that Msr. Pascal was not an Orthodox Father. I would want his specific definition of "truth" before I go too much further however.

"If you would debate with me sir, define your terms!" Thoreau

In the context of the quote, I would guess he means doctrinal propositional truth: facts. Hence the contrast with falsehood. There is a tendency to forgot that truth in the Bible can also mean 'genuine', 'real', as in the old english word 'Verity', and in the english translation of the Ath. Creed: Very God of Very God. If our 'truth' becomes our idol, then it becomes not real, and false.

[Rick H.]

"If you would debate with me sir, define your terms!" Thoreau


Dear Herman,

http://www.monachos.net/forum/memberimages/thumb_777845ff091e73d0c.jpg (http://www.monachos.net/forum/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=258)

Your friend,
Rick http://cdn-cf.aol.com/se/smi/0201d201a5/01

[Nina]

The genesis of dogmas is primarily the Church's response to various emerging heresies. For instance, the dogma of the divinity of Christ was canonized after the rise of Arianism. Therefore dogmas are not subject of worship, but rather didactic. That is why the book of Canons is called Pedalion (The Rudder). Likewise a rudder guides the ship to its destination, so the Pedalion (The Rudder) guides the Ship, which is the Orthodox Church, to Christ.

We are not living in the Heavenly Triumphant Church, but in the earthly Militant Church, which is surrounded by imperfection and the attack of "invisible powers", as Saint Paul says; thus the Militant Church is constantly struggling, fighting heresies and invisible powers.

The Militant Church is at the same time a divine institution and an earthly institution, hence due to the latter it is a necessity to introduce rules and guidelines. These rules and guidelines, which are the dogmas, are introduced by the Saints and the Fathers of the Orthodox Church, who received their inspiration from the Holy Spirit. Furthermore these dogmas were the praxis of their lives. I think it is clear now, that the Orthodox worship the Triadic God, not the dogmas about God.

[Nina]

In the context of the quote, I would guess he means doctrinal propositional truth: facts. Hence the contrast with falsehood. There is a tendency to forgot that truth in the Bible can also mean 'genuine', 'real', as in the old english word 'Verity', and in the english translation of the Ath. Creed: Very God of Very God. If our 'truth' becomes our idol, then it becomes not real, and false.

For the Orthodox, Truth is not an abstract and/or relative notion, but it is a Person: Christ (Who says, "I am the Truth").

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Nina

That is certainly true in some senses, but it is not an absolute.

It is absolutely true, for instance, that 2+2=4. This is so whether I am in a relationship with Christ or not. But history is true in a relative sense rather than an absolute.

We must be careful not to make our own understandings, or even some aspects of the life of the Church, or some accounts of history made by Orthodox Christians, into absolute truths when they are not. If we only allow one type of truth then we are in danger of doing this.

Peter

[Nina]

Dear Nina

That is certainly true in some senses, but it is not an absolute.

It is absolutely true, for instance, that 2+2=4. This is so whether I am in a relationship with Christ or not. But history is true in a relative sense rather than an absolute.

We must be careful not to make our own understandings, or even some aspects of the life of the Church, or some accounts of history made by Orthodox Christians, into absolute truths when they are not. If we only allow one type of truth then we are in danger of doing this.

Peter

Christ is Risen,

Dear Peter,

I am not talking in secular terms, but in theological terms. And in theological terms Truth is Christ, and it is the absolute Truth.

[Peter Farrington]

Thanks for clearing that up. You hadn't said that you were only speaking of theological truth, rather than other sorts.

Peter

[Kornelius]

Dear Nina

That is certainly true in some senses, but it is not an absolute.

It is absolutely true, for instance, that 2+2=4. This is so whether I am in a relationship with Christ or not. But history is true in a relative sense rather than an absolute.

We must be careful not to make our own understandings, or even some aspects of the life of the Church, or some accounts of history made by Orthodox Christians, into absolute truths when they are not. If we only allow one type of truth then we are in danger of doing this.

Peter

Dear Peter,

First of all it is not absolutely true as you say that 2+2=4. That is true only if you use the base 10 system. There were cultures and civilizations that used other base systems. For instance the Babylonians/Sumerians used the base 60 system, the Western Europe once used the base 20 system.
In Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Alice says: "four times five is twelve." If we use base 18, then 4x5=20 will indeed be written as 12, because 20 is 1 unit of 18 and 2 units of 1.

What is the purpose of this mathematical introduction?

It is to show that we must not confuse mathematical, scientific, historical, earthly relative truths with absolute divine truth, that is Christ.

The event of Christ's Incarnation, different from other secular historical facts it is not a relative historical fact, but the absolute Truth, for the very reason that He is not just a human being, but everlasting Absolute God. In Him we see the intersection of kronos (earthly relative time) and kairos (everlasting time).

Many christians are confused with the notion of relativity in view of the overwhelming presence of the Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I would like to remind everyone that even Einstein was aware of the limits of his theory stating explicitly that "the Theory of Relativity applies to physics not to theology."

The relegation of Absolute Truth to the notion that things are relative can be very dangerous, and may lead to pantheism, that is, there is truth everywhere and absolute truth nowhere. This is only a step away from atheism. In Orthodoxy we believe in the Absolute Truth that is Christ.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

It is not lost on me that when the subject/topic of this thread in particular (assuming that it is remembered) comes up, there is almost always a magnetic/organic type of attraction/migration or 'draw' to the "concept" of Truth. I wonder if this could mean there is a correlation? As defined by Nina, there is certainly a connection. And, the Truth is always the Truth, even if spoken by an unbeliever, and as well, it's always right to do right, isn't it? But, it is very interesting how, not just here, but in other situations it seems that when one speaks of the local church or the global church or both as one, the conversation moves in this direction regardless of the point of view of the participants.

I also, notice that it is more than clear at the present, in our discussion, that the Orthodox do not worship dogmas. And, I'll bet it would take an equally short time span to determine that WE do not worship the bible either. But, I wonder what the symphonia or the mind of our group is as it relates to the following question:

1.) Do the Orthodox worship "the Church" [defined as it has been defined in the past by the Church Herself]

In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

The nonOrthodox must understand that dogma is not a propositional statement, but an verbal iconic expression as a result of participation within the life of the Trinity.

Hmmm... I think that 'propositional statement' here ought to be defined. According to the standard definition all sentences are propositional statements. Dogma is made up of sentences therefore dogma is composed of propositional statements.

'verbal iconic expression' tells the purpose of these given propositional statements and 'as a result of participation within the life of the trinity' tells the source.

It is these two things that define the proper way to encounter Christ. We must first give authority where authority is due -not in our own understanding of dogma but in the dogma itself. I run into philosopher friends who want to take scripture and critisize it because it is paradoxical and inconsistent in their view. But it is only in accepting the whole authority of scripture and wrestling with the paradox that leads one to Christ. The paradox itself keeps us from closing up the boundaries of knowledge. Second we must keep our purpose in mind as Father Raphael so wonderfully expresses it.


In fact without pursuing this genuine knowledge of Christ, without having this as a conscious point to aim at, there is a fundamental betrayal of Christ's calling, for we are called to know Him for Who He really is.


I have friends in the centering prayer movement that are seeking some kind of spiritual experience rather then knowledge of Christ. They may read scripture but they do not wrestle with scripture at all, nor are they serious in their study of it because there is no desire to know Christ only to have some experience of Him.

St. Augustine in the following quote I think expresses the struggle so well.



But how can we follow after Him whom we do not see? or how can we see Him, we who are not only men, but also men of weak understanding? For though God is seen not with the eyes but with the mind, where can such a mind be found as shall, while obscured by foolishness, succeed or even attempt to drink in that light? We must therefore have recourse to the instructions of those whom we have reason to think wise. Thus far argument brings us. For in human things reasoning is employed, not as of greater certainty, but as easier from use. But when we come to divine things, this faculty turns away; it cannot behold; it pants, and gasps, and burns with desire; it falls back from the light of truth, and turns again to its wonted obscurity, not from choice, but from exhaustion. What a dreadful catastrophe is this, that the soul should be reduced to greater helplessness when it is seeking rest from its toil! So, when we are hasting to retire into darkness, it will be well that by the appointment of adorable Wisdom we should be met by the friendly shade of authority, and should be attracted by the wonderful character of its contents, and by the utterances of its pages, which, like shadows, typify and attemper the truth. St. Augustine

[Mary]

I have friends in the centering prayer movement that are seeking some kind of spiritual experience rather then knowledge of Christ. They may read scripture but they do not wrestle with scripture at all, nor are they serious in their study of it because there is no desire to know Christ only to have some experience of Him.



I have no idea what centering prayer is. But, about wrestling with Scripture and studying it seriously - not all of us have the mental capacity to do that. For those of us with weak minds, we do need experience that will help clarify the scriptures to us. But that is dangerous, because experiences can be so subjective and we can so easily delude ourselves and misinterpret out own experiences.

That's where we need the Church. We Experience Christ through the life of the Church - the liturgical cycles, The Eucharist, the Holy Traditions, the fasting and the feasting and the prayers and the reading of Scriptures. Depending on our maturity, we all experience this at different depths. I think I can safely say, I have a slightly better understanding of intellectual stuff than my two children who are 8 and 5 yrs old. But, we went through Great Lent and Pascha together, and they experienced struggles and victories just like I did!

In my past life as a protestant, I could never get my children to experience anything that I experienced through the study of scriptures. I myself experienced no victories over my sinfulness, how was I to teach them? I knew all the teachings, but it didn't match up with real life. Love, Joy, Peace, ... just words - like empty promises - like smelling the wonderful feast on the table and knowing what was on the menu, but not being able to enter and taste and eat. So for me, who am of limited mental abilities, studying scripture was like learning what's on the menu and studying the ingredients in the main course, figuring out what cooking techniques were used to create each dish, etc. The Experience - is like banging on the door and yelling to be let in so I can eat. I'm done thinking and I'm starving.

That's not to say that live is rosy and I'm well fed now. My sin keeps getting in the way. Thank God for Confession! =)

In Christ,
Mary

[Celinda Grace]

Mary,

You may say you do not have much mental capacity but I disagree. You have an absolutely wonderful way with word pictures. First the bridge and now this. It's beautiful and so appropriate.


like smelling the wonderful feast on the table and knowing what was on the menu, but not being able to enter and taste and eat. So for me, who am of limited mental abilities, studying scripture was like learning what's on the menu and studying the ingredients in the main course, figuring out what cooking techniques were used to create each dish, etc. The Experience - is like banging on the door and yelling to be let in so I can eat. I'm done thinking and I'm starving.

[Mary]

Mary,

You may say you do not have much mental capacity but I disagree. You have an absolutely wonderful way with word pictures. First the bridge and now this. It's beautiful and so appropriate.


LOL =) In case you didn't notice, I totally ignored all the talk about 'propositional statements', 'verbal iconic expression,' authority and dogma and the quote from St Augustine, because, honestly, I didn't understand all that one bit. I didn't understand Owen's post about the Church and I didn't understand most of Fr Raphael's post. And even if you had the patience to explain it, it wouldnt' make sense to me.

But food, I can talk about. =)

Mary

[Nina]

Dear Peter,

First of all it is not absolutely true as you say that 2+2=4. That is true only if you use the base 10 system. There were cultures and civilizations that used other base systems. For instance the Babylonians/Sumerians used the base 60 system, the Western Europe once used the base 20 system.
In Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, Alice says: "four times five is twelve." If we use base 18, then 4x5=20 will indeed be written as 12, because 20 is 1 unit of 18 and 2 units of 1.

What is the purpose of this mathematical introduction?

It is to show that we must not confuse mathematical, scientific, historical, earthly relative truths with absolute divine truth, that is Christ.

The event of Christ's Incarnation, different from other secular historical facts it is not a relative historical fact, but the absolute Truth, for the very reason that He is not just a human being, but everlasting Absolute God. In Him we see the intersection of kronos (earthly relative time) and kairos (everlasting time).

Many christians are confused with the notion of relativity in view of the overwhelming presence of the Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I would like to remind everyone that even Einstein was aware of the limits of his theory stating explicitly that "the Theory of Relativity applies to physics not to theology."

The relegation of Absolute Truth to the notion that things are relative can be very dangerous, and may lead to pantheism, that is, there is truth everywhere and absolute truth nowhere. This is only a step away from atheism. In Orthodoxy we believe in the Absolute Truth that is Christ.

Christ is Risen!

Dear Kornelius,

Wonderfully said; thank you!

P.S Thank you for the math lesson also!

[Kornelius]

Hmmm... I think that 'propositional statement' here ought to be defined. According to the standard definition all sentences are propositional statements. Dogma is made up of sentences therefore dogma is composed of propositional statements.

'verbal iconic expression' tells the purpose of these given propositional statements and 'as a result of participation within the life of the trinity' tells the source.



Celinda,

I would like to clarify a few things about the character of dogma and St. Augustine.

First, "a propositional statement" you say, by standard definition is attributed to all sentences; dogmas are expressed in sentences, hence by virtue of syllogism, dogmas are propositional statements. Let us explore what is fundamentally flawed with such statement.

A "propositional statement" is an expression in language that can either be believed, doubted or denied, in other words it may be taken both as either true or false. In Orthodoxy a dogma is received as true, without room for speculation.

In general, reasoning syllogistically, not simply in matters of faith, can lead us to logical fallacies. For, instance according to the basic premises of syllogism if A=B and B=C then by syllogism A=C. In your case A (propositional statement) = B (sentence) and B (sentence) = C (dogma) then A=C or in other words dogmas are propositional statements.

Let us provide a couple of illustrations in the secular and mystical realm of ideas. While some chairs (A) are white (B) and some white things (B) are dogs (C) then chairs (A) are dogs (C). This is a false syllogism from the secular realm of things. The second one would be: All men are mortal, Christ is a man, therefore Christ is mortal. This syllogism would be true for any human being, but not for Christ Who possesses a duality of natures. The God in Him is always Immortal.

The character of dogmas is somehow similar to this duality of natures in Christ. They are conveyed to us by means of language yet this language different from other ones echos eternal truths.

Second, since you quote St. Augustine, I would like to say that he is not clear when it comes to the subject of knowing God, or becoming like God, theosis. He is not able in his theology to properly demarcate between the divine Essence of God, the hypostaseis of God, and the Energies of God. Actually the very genesis of Philioque, originates from his confused theology on this particular topic.

I would recommend St. Gregory Palamas as someone who may illumine you on this topic.

[Kornelius]

Christ is Risen!

Dear Kornelius,

Wonderfully said; thank you!

P.S Thank you for the math lesson also!


Dear Nina,

Truly is Risen!

You are welcome!

[Andrew]

Celinda,

I would like to clarify a few things about the character of dogma and St. Augustine.

First, "a propositional statement" you say, by standard definition is attributed to all sentences; dogmas are expressed in sentences, hence by virtue of syllogism, dogmas are propositional statements. Let us explore what is fundamentally flawed with such statement.

A "propositional statement" is an expression in language that can either be believed, doubted or denied, in other words it may be taken both as either true or false. In Orthodoxy a dogma is received as true, without room for speculation.

In general, reasoning syllogistically, not simply in matters of faith, can lead us to logical fallacies. For, instance according to the basic premises of syllogism if A=B and B=C then by syllogism A=C. In your case A (propositional statement) = B (sentence) and B (sentence) = C (dogma) then A=C or in other words dogmas are propositional statements.

Let us provide a couple of illustrations in the secular and mystical realm of ideas. While some chairs (A) are white (B) and some white things (B) are dogs (C) then chairs (A) are dogs (C). This is a false syllogism from the secular realm of things. The second one would be: All men are mortal, Christ is a man, therefore Christ is mortal. This syllogism would be true for any human being, but not for Christ Who possesses a duality of natures. The God in Him is always Immortal.

The character of dogmas is somehow similar to this duality of natures in Christ. They are conveyed to us by means of language yet this language different from other ones echos eternal truths.

Second, since you quote St. Augustine, I would like to say that he is not clear when it comes to the subject of knowing God, or becoming like God, theosis. He is not able in his theology to properly demarcate between the divine Essence of God, the hypostaseis of God, and the Energies of God. Actually the very genesis of Philioque, originates from his confused theology on this particular topic.

I would recommend St. Gregory Palamas as someone who may illumine you on this topic.


Also, in Orthodox theology syllogism is usually looked down upon. Saint Theodore the Studite calls Aristotle's system of philosophy "childish" in On the Divine Images. But anyways...

the problem with syllogism and rationalistic reasoning in general is that it categorizes existence into the narrow confines of human cognition. It tries to fit what is personal and mystery into a law, rule, or condition palatable to the fallen, darkened human mind. It is ultimately false. It is reductionistic and luciferian. If we want to know how the sun was made, we first must repent and know the Maker of the sun, and then we will no longer care for the answer to our initial question, for all will be clear in a way surpassing propositions or human logic, speech, and everything. I'm basically paraphrasing Saint Silouan and Elder Sophrony here.

We Shall See Him as He Is by Elder Sophrony illustrates all of these elements of man's journey to repentance on all spheres of being in such a profound way. I think this book is worth much more than it's weight in gold (I own the hardcover!). Every book written by Elder Sophrony is worth reading. And the books written about him are great too. And we have our own Fr. Seraphim on this board too! We are very blessed!

[Kornelius]

Also, in Orthodox theology syllogism is usually looked down upon. Saint Theodore the Studite calls Aristotle's system of philosophy "childish" in On the Divine Images. But anyways...

the problem with syllogism and rationalistic reasoning in general is that it categorizes existence into the narrow confines of human cognition. It tries to fit what is personal and mystery into a law, rule, or condition palatable to the fallen, darkened human mind. It is ultimately false. It is reductionistic and luciferian. If we want to know how the sun was made, we first must repent and know the Maker of the sun, and then we will no longer care for the answer to our initial question, for all will be clear in a way surpassing propositions or human logic, speech, and everything. I'm basically paraphrasing Saint Silouan and Elder Sophrony here.

We Shall See Him as He Is by Elder Sophrony illustrates all of these elements of man's journey to repentance on all spheres of being in such a profound way. I think this book is worth much more than it's weight in gold (I own the hardcover!). Every book written by Elder Sophrony is worth reading. And the books written about him are great too. And we have our own Fr. Seraphim on this board too! We are very blessed!


Dear Andrew,

Thank you for elaborating my point by focusing furthermore on the Orthodox perspective.

[Nina]

Dear Kornelius and Andrew,

Thank you so much for your very enlightening and relevant posts!



I think this book is worth much more than it's weight in gold (I own the hardcover!).

:) This is so true! I feel like this for all books from Orthodox Fathers and Saints!

[Trudy]

Dear Herman,

http://www.monachos.net/forum/memberimages/thumb_777845ff091e73d0c.jpg (http://www.monachos.net/forum/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=258)

Your friend,
Rick

Gee Rick,

It's amazing how much you look like Cyprian (Humphry). Does he know you are imitating an Orthodox monk?!

Athanasia

[Rick H.]

Okay, you got me again, it's Humphrey . . . I just "borrowed" his photo. I will return it to his personal profile now.

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Nina wrote:
For the Orthodox, Truth is not an abstract and/or relative notion, but it is a Person: Christ (Who says, "I am the Truth").

Fr. Raphael helpfully glosses this for us
We come to know the Person of Christ through the Church because the Church is His Body. Everything we encounter within the Church from Her creeds to the services and icons is genuine because these are actual expressions of Christ Himself. And we know that they are true because in our encounter with them we experience Christ Himself.

Bratislav gives us a beautifully-expressed mystical view
Does not Christ "express Himself" through all of creation. Is He not seen in the "reasons" of all things? And in this way can it not be said that creation as a whole- from rocks and water to angels and men- is the Church, or is a church?

It would seem in fact that the Church exists in degrees and levels of sorts starting with all created things visible and invisible and moving through to all rational beings and then to all men and finally to all men baptized into Christ Jesus.

Our questions about boundaries, nature and limits are producing some interesting comments. Not wishing to get into syllogisms (there is always something heartwarming and amusing at watching our human minds thinking to try to capture within their tiny compass the Infinite mysteries), all those who call themselves Christians would subscribe to Nina's aphorism; all those who call themselves Orthodox, would subscribe to Fr. Raphael's formulation; all theists would probably subscribe to Bratislav's poetic vision. Or so it seems to me.

Originality consists in staying faithful to the original. (Not C.S. Lewis - or at least I can't locate it there).



In Christ,

John

[Peter Farrington]

Is it this quote..


Originality consists in returning to the origin.

This is from Antonio Gaudi.

Peter

[Nina]

Dear John,
What I post about truth and Church, I have borrowed from Saints and Fathers (my mind is super tiny to produce such spiritual Orthodox wealth and treasury), even the aphorism (as you will read below), so please let me correct: it is not Nina's aphorism-as you call it but, it is the belief and the aphorism of an Orthodox Saint of the Church. With love, Nina

"To the irreligious contemporary man, all the dogmatic arguments of the fourth century seem incomprehensible and senseless." Saint Ilarion

Christianity or the Church?
By Saint Ilarion, Holy New Martyr of Russia.

"Usually, people prefer to remain silent concerning a matter which they know nothing about and do not understand. This, of course, is completely sensible. Let us imagine, for example, a person who knows nothing about chemistry but who, nevertheless, constantly insists upon interfering in the affairs of chemists. He corrects their scientific formulae which have been obtained with great difficulty, changing their order or replacing one with another. We would agree that such a person is acting with the highest degree of imprudence and that we can only have pity for him.

There is one field, however, in which too many people consider themselves to be complete masters, in fact, almost legislators; that is the area concerning the Christian faith and the Church. In this field also, clear and definite formulae have been established with a great effort of theological thought, spiritual guidance, faith, and piety. These formulae are established and must be accepted on faith. Regardless of this fact, a great many people enter into the questions of faith and the Church solely as bold and decisive reformers who want to remake everything according to their own personal desires. In cases where such people have insufficient knowledge or understanding, they are especially averse to remaining silent. To the contrary they begin not only to speak, but to shout. Such shouting on the questions of faith and the Church usually finds the columns of newspapers and the ordinary conversations of people who, in general, very seldom think of faith and the Church at all. If they do think of such things, they prefer to voice themselves exclusively in an authoritative and accusatory tone.
In such an atmosphere a great multitude of various perverse opinions are born which then become fashionable because no one will trouble himself to consider and examine them. In the prevalence of such opinions it can easily occur that they are unconsciously assimilated even by people who are dedicated in their souls to the faith and the Church. [...]

In our times we hear many various answers such as: "To be a Christian means to recognize Christ's teaching, to try to fulfill His commandments." This, of course, is the best of such answers. The first Christians, however, answered the question in a completely different way. From the very first pages of its history, Christianity appears before us in the form of a harmonious and unanimous community. Outside of this community there were no Christians. To come to believe in Christ, to become a Christian - this meant uniting with the Church. This is repeatedly expressed in the book of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read that the Lord daily added the saved to the Church (cf. Acts 2:47; 5:13-14). Each new believer was like a branch grafted to the tree of Church life. [...]

Here is a more distinctive example, an illustration of precisely this joining to the Church. The persecutor Saul who had breathed threatening and murderous desires against the Lord's disciples, underwent a miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, and became a follower of Christ. Here before us is a special revelation of God to man. In Damascus, the Lord sent Ananias to baptize Saul. Saul then travelled to Jerusalem in order to join himself to the disciples there. After Barnabas had informed the Apostles about him, "he abode as one among them." Thus, even the future great Apostle whom, in the vision of Ananias, the Lord calls a chosen instrument (Acts 9:15), immediately after conversion became united with the Church which was a visible community. Here is graphic evidence that the Lord does not want to know His servants outside of the Church. [...]

Yes, in the first centuries the Church was already opposed to the school. The school was almost a curse word to the ancient Christians. "School" was the name of the heretical communities which separated from the Church, as can be seen from the works of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon and Hippolytus of Rome. Using this name, they emphasized their own view that outside the Church there is no Christian life, there is room only for a school of rationalism, for scholastic philosophy. [...]

Saint Cyprian even expressed the decisive thought that, not only can there be no Christian life outside the Church, but there can be no Christian teaching either. The pure faith exists only in the Church. Saint Cyprian also calls the Church by the name "Truth," and teaches that the unity of the faith cannot be separated from the unity of the Church, for truth is one even as the Church is one.

He who does not adhere to the unity of the Church cannot think that he is preserving the faith. Any separation from the Church is, without fail, connected with the distortion of the faith. "The enemy has contrived heresies and schisms in order to overthrow the faith, distort the truth, and dissolve unity. His servants proclaim the treachery under the pretense of faith, herald the antichrist in the name of Christ and, concealing the lie by means of imitation righteousness, subtly and guilefully destroy the truth."

"Just as Satan is not Christ although he deceives in His name, so one cannot be a Christian if he does not abide in the truth of His gospel and faith." "A heretic cleaves the Church and destroys faith ... he arms himself against the Church. In relation to the faith, he is a traitor; in relation to piety, he is a defiler, a recalcitrant servant, a lawless son, a hostile brother."

If one examines the faith of those who believe outside the Church, it would be found that all heretics have a completely different faith; as a matter of fact they have only a wild fanaticism, blasphemy, and a decay which is fighting against holiness and truth." According to Saint Cyprian, to be outside the Church and yet remain a Christian is impossible, for to be outside the Church is to be outside Christ's camp.

Those who separate themselves from the Church and those who act against the Church are antichrists and heathens. Here, for example, is what Saint Cyprian writes to Antonius concerning Novatian: "You have desired, most beloved brother, that I write you concerning Novatian, what heresy he has introduced. Know that, first of all, we must not be curious about what he teaches when he is teaching outside the Church. "No matter who or what he is, he is not a Christian as soon as he is not in the Church of Christ." "How can anyone be with Christ if he does not dwell within the Bride of Christ, if he is not found in His Church?"

Finally, in the treatise, "On the Unity of the Catholic Church," we read the famous words, "He who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father." Saint Cyprian completely refuses the name "Christian" to all those who stand outside the Church, as if repeating the decisive exclamation of his teacher Tertullian: "haeretici christiani esse non possunt!" - heretics cannot be Christians! [...]

According to the words of Saint Cyprian, to be a Christian means to belong to the visible Church and to submit to the hierarchy which God has placed in it. The Church is the realization of Christ's love and any separation from the Church is a violation of this love, in which both heretics and schismatics sin equally. [...]

It is easy to understand that Protestantism corresponds to the almost completely pagan outlook generally approved in the West. There, where the cult of individualism blossoms luxuriantly, finding prophets in fashionable philosophy and singers in the belles-lettres, Christ's ideal of the Church can, of course have no place; for it negates self-love and self-will in people and demands love from them all. [...]

Blessed Augustine held that the Christian teaching, understood theoretically, can be preserved outside the Church. Truth remains truth even though an evil person might express it. For even the demons confessed Christ just as did the Apostle Peter. Gold is doubtlessly good and it remains gold even when taken by a thief, even though it serves different aims for him. Christ once said to his disciples, "he that is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:50). From this it is concluded that one who stands outside the Church on some things is not against the Church and has something of the Church's wealth. Athenians, however, "honored the Unknown God" (Acts 17:23) and the Apostle James testified that even the demons believe (James 2:19), and they, of course, are outside of the Church. In his works against the Donatists, Blessed Augustine argues in detail for the validity of schismatic baptism. If, however, it is possible to preserve true teaching outside the Church and if even the sacraments performed in schism from the Church are valid, then is the Church really necessary? Is salvation not possible outside the Church? Does not Blessed Augustine make a distinction between Christianity and the Church? To all these questions a negative reply is given in the system of Blessed Augustine. He ascribes Christian life, which leads to salvation, only to the Church. Outside the Church this life cannot exist.
All the wealth of the Church which is possessed by those who have separated themselves from the Church brings them absolutely no benefit, but only harm. Why is this so? Because, answers Blessed Augustine, all those who have separated from the Church do not possess love. Christ gave a sign by which it is possible to recognize His disciples. This sign is not Christian teaching, not even the sacraments, but only love. Thus, He told His followers, "By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35). The Mysteries will not save if the one receiving them has no love. The Apostle says: "If I know all the mysteries (sacraments) and do not possess love, I am nothing." Even Caiaphas prophesied, but he was condemned. The act of separation from the Church is itself the greatest sin, which proves that schismatics do not have love. One who is reborn in baptism, but does not unite with the Church receives no benefit from baptism because he possesses no love; baptism can be beneficial for him only when he unites with the Church. The Grace of baptism cannot cleanse from sin one who does not belong to the Church; its actions are as if paralyzed by the obstinacy of a schismatic heart in the evil of schism. Since one who is baptized outside the Church displays his sinfulness and the absence of love in him immediately after baptism by entering into the darkness of schism, the sins quickly return upon him. The fact that forgiven sins return if there is no brotherly love is clearly pointed out by the Lord when He spoke of the servant whom the master forgave ten thousand talents. When this same servant did not take pity upon his fellow who owed him only one hundred dinars, the master demanded the payment of all that was owed him. Just as this servant had received forgiveness of the debt for a time, so one who is baptized outside the Church is also freed from his sins for a time. Since, however, he remains outside the Church even after baptism, all the sins which he committed before being baptized are again imposed upon him. His sins are forgiven only when he, through love, unites with the Church.

Schismatics are deprived of the hope of salvation not only because their baptism is invalid, but also because they are outside the Church and in enmity with it. The Grace of the Holy Spirit can be received and preserved only by one who is united in love with the Church. He who has separated from the Church does not have love. He who does not love the unity of the Church does not have God's love, it is in vain that he declares that he has the love of Christ. Love can be preserved only in the presence of unity with the Church, because the Holy Spirit revives only the body of the Church. There can be no lawful and sufficient reason to separate from the Church; he who separates from the Church does not possess the Holy Spirit, just as a severed member of the body does not possess the spirit of life, even though it preserves its former identity for some time. Thus, while all those who have separated from the Church oppose it, they cannot be good; although their behavior might appear to be praiseworthy - the very fact of their separation from the Church makes them evil.

Thus, according to the teaching of Blessed Augustine, the Church is a concept narrower than Christianity which is understood only in the sense of abstract theses. It is possible to be in accord with these abstract theses while still remaining outside the Church; but for unity with the Church, the accord of will is indispensible (consensio voluntatum). It is evident that without this latter, abstract accord with Christian teaching alone is completely useless and that there is no salvation outside the Church."



*U mine (Nina)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Does not Christ "express Himself" through all of creation. Is He not seen in the "reasons" of all things? And in this way can it not be said that creation as a whole- from rocks and water to angels and men- is the Church, or is a church?

It would seem in fact that the Church exists in degrees and levels of sorts starting with all created things visible and invisible and moving through to all rational beings and then to all men and finally to all men baptized into Christ Jesus. I don't mean this to be an exhaustive list of the "concentric rings of ecclesial reality" but a demonstration of the general idea I am putting out here for consideration.

-In Christ

St Maximous the Confessor in The Church's Mystagogy Chap 1 says:



It is in this way that the holy Church of God will be shown to be working for us the same effects as God, in the same way as the image reflects its archetype. For numerous and of almost infinite number are the men, women, and children who are distinct from one another and vastly different by birth and appearance, by nationality and language, by customs and age, by opinions and skills, by manners and habits, by pursuits and studies, and still again by reputation, fortune, characteristics, and connections: All are born into the Church and through it are reborn and recreated in the Spirit.

To all in equal measure it gives and bestows one divine form and designation, to be Christ's and to carry His name. In accordance with faith it gives to all a single, simple, whole, and indivisible condition which does not allow us to bring to mind the existence of the myriads of differences among them, even if they do exist, through the universal relationship and union of all things with it [ie the Church].

In other works St Maximos explains that the reason for these divisions is the Fall. He does not mean that all of the ways in which people are distinct as humans is a result of the Fall or sinful- not at all. He means that the way in which we are distinct from each other then becomes sources of division is what is fallen.

Now as St Maximus explains it is within the Church that this division between us is healed. We are not meant to lose what makes each of us distinct- but this will no longer sinfully divide us in contention from each other. And through Christ within the Church this is what is gradually being accomplished.

As St Maximus continues to say:


It is through it [ie the Church] that absolutely no one at all is in himself separated from the community since everyone converges with all the rest and joins together with them by the one, simple, and indivisible grace and power of faith. ...Thus to be and to appear as one body formed of different members is really worthy of Christ Himself, our true head. It is He Who encloses in Himself all beings by the unique, simple, and infinitely wise power of His goodness.

This unifying work of the Church is its most awesome aspect for through it we participate in the healing of the whole creation from the effects of the Fall, from sin and death. Ultimately this is what our life in Christ within the Church is for as a kind of responsibility to the whole of creation.

That this work though can only be accomplished through Christ is also made obvious within the Church:


As the center of straight lines that radiate from Him [ie from Christ] He does not allow by His unique, simple, and single cause and power that the principles of beings become disjointed at the periphery but rather He circumscribes their extension in a circle and brings back to Himself the distinctive elements of beings which He Himself brought into existence. The reason for this is so that the creations and products of the one God be in no way strangers and enemies to one another by having no reason or center for which they might show each other friendly or peaceful sentiment or identity, and not run the risk of being separated from God to dissolve into nonbeing.

Here St Maximus, using the image found in St Dionysios the Areopagite, describes Christ's work in relation to the creation in terms of a circle. This circle is like a wheel with separate spokes within it. These spokes are drawn together in unity by their central point which is Christ. This image conveys Christ's unifying work within the Church which draws together all things while not destroying what they really are.

This unifying work however is not just the work of Christ. It is true that it can only be accomplished through Him. But each point on the wheel must also participate in this unifying work by referring back to Christ. This is the only thing that makes the wheel intact.

This brings us back to the point I was trying make yesterday about how the boundaries of the Church are most assuredly found through a correct knowledge of the Person of Christ. The point then was that only within the Church is this knowledge found because indeed the Church is the Body of Christ.

In other words knowledge of Who Christ really is isn't book knowledge preserved by the Church passed down from generation to generation. This isn't so at all, for experience shows that anything passed down in this human fashion is liable to deformation, even Scripture itself.

Rather the Church is simply put the place where Christ is known because through living communion with Him it is His Body and we are called to be His members.

Now about whether the Church exists "in degrees and levels of sorts" relates to how Christ is known. To the degree that Christ is incorrectly known or it is incomplete in some fundamental sense then that work of healing creation of sin and death is either violated or left fundamentally incomplete no matter what is attempted. This is not the Church for it is not pointed in the direction of full knowledge of Christ as is the Divine/human Body of Christ.

Since all however are still in the process of moving towards their completion those aware that their position is fundamentally incomplete and in need of something else could very well be moving towards the Church at some point.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,

Very many thanks for more excellent quotations.

Your latest one directs us back to some of the themes for shadowed in my opening post, which dealt, in part, with a dialogue between +Kallistos and those whom he had termed 'hawks'. As I explained back then, it seemed as though such characterisations were not altogether helpful, since they brought into this area terminology originating from a very different one; indeed, I suggested that it was unclear whether we actually had evolved a language in which we could usefully discuss this topic. Parts of your quotation make me wish that I was sure that we had that language available to us now.

The quotation from St. Ilarion would, to use +Kallistos' terminology, seem to originate from the 'hawkish quarter':

Those who separate themselves from the Church and those who act against the Church are antichrists and heathens. Here, for example, is what Saint Cyprian writes to Antonius concerning Novatian: "You have desired, most beloved brother, that I write you concerning Novatian, what heresy he has introduced. Know that, first of all, we must not be curious about what he teaches when he is teaching outside the Church. "No matter who or what he is, he is not a Christian as soon as he is not in the Church of Christ." "How can anyone be with Christ if he does not dwell within the Bride of Christ, if he is not found in His Church?"

Finally, in the treatise, "On the Unity of the Catholic Church," we read the famous words, "He who does not have the Church as his mother cannot have God as his Father." Saint Cyprian completely refuses the name "Christian" to all those who stand outside the Church, as if repeating the decisive exclamation of his teacher Tertullian: "haeretici christiani esse non possunt!" - heretics cannot be Christians! [...]

According to the words of Saint Cyprian, to be a Christian means to belong to the visible Church and to submit to the hierarchy which God has placed in it. The Church is the realization of Christ's love and any separation from the Church is a violation of this love, in which both heretics and schismatics sin equally. [...]

I wonder, however, if that 'hawkishness' is quite as clear as it seems to be. Cyprian is venerated as a saint by Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Anglicans and the Lutherans; which of these is 'the Church' outside of which one may be called an 'heretic'? Short of accepting a self-serving declaration that 'it is our Church, because our Church says so', which is not an argument but an assertion, it does not really move us on in our discussion of the 'nature' of the Church - indeed, it simply raises it in pointed form.

St. Cyprian was, of course, writing of the heretics in his own day, especially the Novatians, and it would seem a little unwise to apply his quotations to any of the Churches which currently venerate him, since none of them teach that heresy.

Now, of course, one can take one's own Church, its definition of what is heretical, and apply it to the others; but since all could play that game, it would seem on the useless side of pointless, since one would only be declaring the blindingly obvious.

I have been doing more work on St. Isaac and his Church, and the more one reads the clearer become the outline of a bigger problem.

Our definition of 'ecumenical councils' as 'universal' seems both flawed and self-referential. Those called to them were within the 'ecumene' of the Roman Empire; this automatically defined 'the Church' as those Christians within the Roman Empire - illustrating, perhaps, a fundamental definitional problem once Christianity became a state religion. What about those outside the Empire, whose doctrine was perfectly Orthodox, but whose bishops were not (and could not be) invited to participate in the 'ecumenical councils'?

This is one of the problems with theological imperialism; it starts off locating itself as the only reference point, automatically marginalising those outside the empire. This was certainly not the way the Church operated before Constantine, and seems, to put it mildly, a trifle unApostolic, and something of a bold departure from ancient practice. All, perhaps, fair enough, if it did not leave the Persian Church shut out, ending up with it being labelled 'heretical' - with, of course, the ghastly consequences that St. Cyprian writes follow from that.

One might well argue that to define such people as 'heretics' is unfair - I would agree, but suggest it shows why we have to be more careful in applying that word than is sometimes the case.

There is, indeed, a strong case for Fr. Raphael's formulation that

the boundaries of the Church are most assuredly found through a correct knowledge of the Person of Christ. The point then was that only within the Church is this knowledge found because indeed the Church is the Body of Christ

which brings us back to the question of where those boundaries might be found; is 'correct knowledge of the person of Christ' to be found in only one place?

In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

This is only a suggestion.

But I wonder if it's possible for those outside the Church to recognize (except in rare cases of crisis) that they are outside of the Church.

What I mean is that for example we often take a hospital as an image of the Church. But those outside of the hospital also believe they are being healed. And indeed people outside of hospitals are really healed to some extent.

So when it comes to the Church is it even possible to recognize that one is not in the THE hospital?

And according to the nature of the Church is it possible to recognize something of which one can have no inner knowledge?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Our definition of 'ecumenical councils' as 'universal' seems both flawed and self-referential. Those called to them were within the 'ecumene' of the Roman Empire; this automatically defined 'the Church' as those Christians within the Roman Empire - illustrating, perhaps, a fundamental definitional problem once Christianity became a state religion. What about those outside the Empire, whose doctrine was perfectly Orthodox, but whose bishops were not (and could not be) invited to participate in the 'ecumenical councils'?

I think this discloses a problem of definitions. None of the ecumenical councils was 'universal' of by that term one means 'everyone from everywhere'. One of the extant texts of the first ecumenical council, of which little was recorded, is a letter written to a whole group of bishops not present.

The title 'ecumenical' is more a theological descriptor than a practical distinction of scope (no council ever held has been 'universal' in the sense of full representation of all sectors of the Christian world).

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,


The title 'ecumenical' is more a theological descriptor than a practical distinction of scope (no council ever held has been 'universal' in the sense of full representation of all sectors of the Christian world).


I suspect that the term became a theological descriptor for those who found it useful as such, but the contemporary understanding seems to have been that the 'ecumene' was in fact the Roman Empire - hence the want of an invitation to the many Christians outside its jurisdiction. It does, indeed, take us back to our old subject of the utility of labels; what something became is not, of course, necessarily what it was originally. That may also apply to Fr. Raphael's interesting question.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear John, you wrote:


I suspect that the term became a theological descriptor for those who found it useful as such, but the contemporary understanding seems to have been that the 'ecumene' was in fact the Roman Empire - hence the want of an invitation to the many Christians outside its jurisdiction.

Any evidence for this? In my study and teaching on the subject I can find none. You mention the lack of invitation sent to those outside the empire; but this is hardly a grounds in and of itself for a definition of the term.

The first usage of the title 'ecumenical', at least for the previous councils (e.g. Nicaea) seems to be at the council of Chalcedcon; and there is not a focus there on imperial territory.

I rather suspect the actual situation is fairly the opposite of the common assumption; namely, I suspect that it was a theological title first.

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

It is interesting to note that the word “Catholic” is also often seen in a similair way by some contemporary commentators along with the term 'ecumenical'.

When St. Ignatius uses the term Catholic he is not referring to the empire but rather he is referencing a unity, Orthodoxy. Fr. Georges Florovsky explains below how things had been understood commenting on a letter of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp.

"This is the first written use, which has come down to us of the term "Catholic" Church. The word "catholic" means in Greek "universal" but the conception of catholicity cannot be measured by its world-wide expansion — "universality" does not express the Greek meaning exactly. Καθολική comes from καθ’ ολου, which first of all means the inner wholeness, not only of communion and in any case not of a simple empirical communion. Καθ’ ολου is not the same as κατά παντός. It belongs not to the phenomenal and empirical, but to the nominal and ontological plane. It describes the very essence and not the external manifestations. If "catholic" also means "universal," it certainly is not an empirical universality but rather an ideal one: the communion of ideas, not of facts, is what is meant. St. Ignatius’ use of the word is precisely this. This word gives prominence to the orthodoxy of the Church, to the truth of the Church in contrast with the spirit of sectarian separatism and particularize. He is expressing the idea of integrity and purity."

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I don't see how it could be a theological term first because that would require that the participants at a council knew that what was about to take place would have a universal authority and application.

As far as I remember the council of Ephesus in 449 considered itself ecumenical, because it consisted to a wide range of participants and considered its deliberations to have a universal applicability. I cannot recall if it referred the term ecumenical explicitly to the ecumene, or merely assumed that what was Imperial was universal.

Probably the latter.

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

I don't see how it could be a theological term first because that would require that the participants at a council knew that what was about to take place would have a universal authority and application.

Dear Peter, this is an excellent point. But the councils called 'ecumenical' did not call themselves this; it was a title of recognition imposed later.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Any evidence for this? In my study and teaching on the subject I can find none. You mention the lack of invitation sent to those outside the empire; but this is hardly a grounds in and of itself for a definition of the term.

The first usage of the title 'ecumenical', at least for the previous councils (e.g. Nicaea) seems to be at the council of Chalcedon; and there is not a focus there on imperial territory.
[/I]

Dear Matthew,


... in our Greek and Latin sources for the period ... in an ecclesiastical context this [ecumenical] normally refers to the oikoumene of the Roman Empire. This is especially important to remember in connection with the "Ecumenical Councils": these were gatherings confined to bishops of the Roman Empire and they were in any case convened by the Roman Emperor, whose authority of course was not recognised outside the bounds of the Roman Empire. (S. Brock, 'The Church of the East in the Sasanian Empire upto the Sixth Century and its absence from the Councils in the Roman Empire', in Fire from Heaven Variorum, 2006, p. 70).

I have checked this with a colleague whose speciality is medieval ecclesiastical history, who is of the same opinion, although he agrees with you that by the middle ages the 'theological' definition was current in the Latin Church; which, given the absence of a real Roman Empire in the west, is only natural. Perhaps Eastern practice was different? That might rather tend to support Professor Brock's contention, I suspect.

I shall have to check other sources, and my list for Chalcedon - but are you suggesting that the Emperor invited bishops from outside his empire to that Council? That would be interesting. Certainly the Church of the East does not seem to have received its invitation.

The central point, whatever word one adopts, would seem to be that the Councils were convened by the Roman Emperor who, as Professor Brock suggests, sent invitations where his writ ran; that is a self-defining conceptualisation of the Church in classic hegemonic style - is it not?

In Christ,

John

[Celinda Grace]

A "propositional statement" is an expression in language that can either be believed, doubted or denied, in other words it may be taken both as either true or false. In Orthodoxy a dogma is received as true, without room for speculation.

The important point here is "received as". Any set of words can be believed or doubted even 'God exists'. Maybe I can correct my original statement to say that it is our approach to a set of words that makes it dogma or propositional.



Second, since you quote St. Augustine, I would like to say that he is not clear when it comes to the subject of knowing God, or becoming like God, theosis. He is not able in his theology to properly demarcate between the divine Essence of God, the hypostaseis of God, and the Energies of God. Actually the very genesis of Philioque, originates from his confused theology on this particular topic.

I would recommend St. Gregory Palamas as someone who may illumine you on this topic.

I think the very quote I give illustrates Augustine's problem and why his theology is troubled. As far as I understand what I have read in the Philokalia the perfection of the saints consists in all things being submitted to God and being back under proper authority. In Augustine's case, here, it is obvious that He is trying in his rational mind to grasp spiritual truth by his own effort rather then bringing his rational mind into subjection to the mind of Christ (nous) in him. He is still on the journey and not yet perfectly submitted to God. This is bound to produce errors.

Obviously someone who has not yet reached perfection should not be accepted as a Church father, however, does that mean we cannot learn from them? I was quoting this as an illustration of the journey not a statement of its end point.

The ontological reality is that all we have and all we are come to us as an act of God's grace. Much of our battle against sin consists in God getting us to fully submit to this truth. God must teach us to cease trying to take as our own, by right of our own effort, anything that He has given us and instead submit to receiving it from Him. One way at least in my own life that God has done this at times is let me exaust myself trying to do what I cannot. When my children around two or three get in the , "Me do it." stage the easiest thing to do is let them try until they get tired and ask for help. God does the same thing with me. Then when it finally sinks in that I can't and I surrender to His grace, then I am healed. I think the Augustine quote pictures this struggle well. Did he ever come to the point of surrender? Do Augustine's later writings reflect something closer to Orthodoxy then his earlier writings? I think it wise to remember when reading anyone that all of us change over time and hopefully grow.

(of course some people are more naturally humble and not so hard headed as I and probably can grow in some better manner)
What the Patristic method is for getting one to this point of surrender is I don't know. I am ignorant of Orthodox praxis.

(moderators, I realize I have gotten off topic here, but am not sure where this might be more appropriately posted)

[Antonios]

Celinda,

Thank you for the above post.



Obviously someone who has not yet reached perfection should not be accepted as a Church father, however, does that mean we cannot learn from them?

None of us are Church fathers ( or mothers! ) here, but we are all learning from eachother. :)

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew, Dear Peter,

In volume 14 of the Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers the editor writes:
it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have
been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been
invited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance
afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized.

That, of course, still get us little further in defining the 'ecumene'. The editor, not an Orthodox scholar or a member of the Orthodox Church, assumed that his own Church was a branch of the ancient undivided Church, and was therefore quite happy with the solipsism he had designed, since by his reading, his own Church, like the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic, fell within it; he might have been less happy had he been told that his own Church was considered schismatic by those who hold that there is only one Church; but of course, as a nineteenth century Anglo-Saxon he would have considered both the Greeks and the Russians inferior races, and have been unworried by their condemnation; rather in the manner that the Greeks of the Roman Empire regarded their 'lesser breeds without the law'.

None of this strikes me as very Christian; it is all very human and a mark of the effects of sin on our weakened nature throughout history. Where it abuts onto our topic here is that it seems to have played a part in defining what the 'boundaries' of the Church are. It seems to be in the nature of man to divide, define and confine; God's salvation is for all who will hear His Word and repent and follow in His way. Empires are rather apt to believe that all good things are to be found within themselves, and would, in their imperial pomp, find no problem with the formulation that 'God was on their side'; God's view would not be thought strictly relevant by those with such a mindset - which speaks for itself. Do we think that He is found only in one place?

To say that councils are considered ecumenical by those who accept their verdict and consider them so, is of course true; but not stunningly useful in itself. If an acceptance of them is essential to be considered orthodox, then are we talking about an acceptance of what they say - in which case many Christian denominations do that, without being Orthodox; or are we going for the narrow point of 'admit they are Ecumenical' - which seems to be something of debating point designed, as such are, to divide?

Reading through volume 14, I find no traces that would suggest that the 'ecumene' was not the Roman Empire. One of the effects of Christianity becoming the state religion, was that the state seems to have thought that those who were outside its 'polis' were also outside its religion.

Eusebius, the best early example of this mindset, deals primarily with the history of the Church within the Roman Empire; a few mentions of exotica from outside it, but he knew little and cared less for those outside the 'ecumene'. The Church of the East accepted Nicea in 410 -85 years after the Council had taken place; was it heretical or in schism before that? Hardly - it had not been invited to the Council, nor yet informed of its results. That, surely, is a perfect example of the point being made about the imperial mind-set and the dangers that follow from it.

We sometimes write as though by the time of the Arab conquests of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, the divisions which followed Chalcedon were set in stone; they were not. But after the Arab conquests, those parts of the ancient undivided Church passed beyond the boundaries of the 'ecumene' and were noted as much as the Church of the East had been. As readers of Steven Runciman's book on the Great Schism will be aware, the weakening of the ties and the growing estrangement between East and West was not altogether unconnected with the division between those within and without the Empire. It is hardly accidental that the Russian Tsars came to see themselves as the 'Third Rome' and the inheritors of the traditions (and the Church) of the Roman Empire.

There is certainly a coincidence between certain definitions of the boundaries of the Church, and the boundaries of the old Roman and Russian Empires; that is unlikely to be coincidental, although it may be suggestive.

In Christ,

John

[Celinda Grace]

This is only a suggestion.

But I wonder if it's possible for those outside the Church to recognize (except in rare cases of crisis) that they are outside of the Church.

What I mean is that for example we often take a hospital as an image of the Church. But those outside of the hospital also believe they are being healed. And indeed people outside of hospitals are really healed to some extent.

So when it comes to the Church is it even possible to recognize that one is not in the THE hospital?

And according to the nature of the Church is it possible to recognize something of which one can have no inner knowledge?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Is the picture of the Church as a hospital really a good icon? It takes the whole relational, participatory and organic nature of the church entirely out of the picture. Maybe the church as a physician’s assistant would be better.

Another problem with this picture of the Church as a hospital is that hospitals only heal those inside it. As you noted there is healing going on outside the Church, but it seems to me that this healing is occuring only because of the influence of the Church. If Western culture is healthier then say Middle Eastern culture it is precisely because it is a Christian culture and the Church has in large part formed many of the values and conditions under which people are living.

In the life of Jesus we see Him attracting people who were then healed - like the woman who touched the hem of His garment. But we also see him healing many more by touching them. In general I would say that God’s movement is outward into the world and that the main purpose of drawing people into Himself more deeply is so that the influence can grow and spread.

Maybe this is where we can find the Church as opposed simply to His general favor. (He makes His rain to fall on both the righteous and the unrighteous.) In looking at history it is clear to me that in different cultures at different times God raises up people to slow down the decay and damage caused by sin. Ghandi, Buddha and Arjuna are I think is a good examples of this. But we see that the healing influence of this general grace get dispersed and weakened with ever new corruptions entering in over time.

In a personal example a Christian might do some good deed for their neighbor bringing healing there. This might stimulate the neighbor to be more kind and pass the deed along, but eventually sin will take over again and the influence will peter out. However, if the neighbor enters the Church and starts to grow so will the influence in their life and in the lives of those they touch.

I started to read “The Mind of the Orthodox Church” and was surprised to find the Jews included as part of the Church. But if we look at influence rather then belief this makes sense. The continuing and increasing influence of the Jewish race finds its fulfillment in the fact that it is through them that Christ came bodily into the world. The post Pentecost Church is bringing Christ spiritually and more fully into the world. What then is needed for this to happen? And where do we see this preparation taking place in a continuing and growing influence? Would this be an appropriate place to locate the Church?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Celinda Grace wrote:


Is the picture of the Church as a hospital really a good icon? It takes the whole relational, participatory and organic nature of the church entirely out of the picture. Maybe the church as a physician’s assistant would be better.


The image of the hospital is used by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos in his different writings. It's not meant as a complete image but rather as referring to how the Church is therapeutic in its treatment of death and sin.

What the Metropolitan is saying is that the Church is not a place where we pay a penalty for sin or encounter Christ's atonement for this sin. Rather the Church is where we are given an an actual ascetic treatment for this sin which in Christ is therapeutic. This is what is chiefly meant by the Church as a hospital.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

Is the picture of the Church as a hospital really a good icon? It takes the whole relational, participatory and organic nature of the church entirely out of the picture. Maybe the church as a physician’s assistant would be better.


Yes. It is a good picture. It helps me to see myself as I am and also helps see others. I am a sick person in need of healing. And so are all those around me. Some are more sick than others. When I get hurt by someone, it's easier for me to have compassion on them, and even accept their outburst, when I see them as lashing out because of the deep sickness in them. The Physician's assistants are the Priests and others like them, who administer 'medicine' to us sick folks. It is my responsibilty to open my mouth and accept the medicine so I can heal and not lash out on others and slow down their healing. Also - not everyone in the hospital will be healed, you do need to take your medicine.

And - a hospital is always organic in nature - if all the doctors and the nurses moved out of the hospital, you won't find healing in the building. If there were doctors and nurses in a tent, you'd find healing there. It's just easier to say 'hospital' because it's one word, but really it means, doctors, nurses, interns, nurse's aids, parameds, receptionist, translator, janitors and even the 'tax' collector. =)


Another problem with this picture of the Church as a hospital is that hospitals only heal those inside it. As you noted there is healing going on outside the Church, but it seems to me that this healing is occuring only because of the influence of the Church.

Forgive me, but this isn't true. The degree of healing is different, but even in real life, if 'health teaching' doesn't happen outside of hospitals, everyone outside would be dead. Most hospitals have community outreach kind of things to bring healing into the community. For those of us who know we're mortally ill, we cannot leave the hospital. For those outside, only God is the Judge of how mortally ill they are - perhaps all they need is a change in their diet and regular exercise and they'll be fine...


If Western culture is healthier then say Middle Eastern culture it is precisely because it is a Christian culture and the Church has in large part formed many of the values and conditions under which people are living.

I hope that 'IF' at the beginning of the statement is stronger than the rest, because there isn't much that's Christian about the Western culture anymore, but the deep family values, respect for elders, etc that is still present in the East puts them ahead of the West in some ways.

Having said that, I have a problem with Gandhi, that I hope Gandhi fans will forgive me for.


In looking at history it is clear to me that in different cultures at different times God raises up people to slow down the decay and damage caused by sin. Ghandi, Buddha and Arjuna are I think is a good examples of this.

Ghandhi did what he did because of the sheer power of his will. Admirable. But because he was able to do all that Christ taught, without Christ's help, he had no need for Christ. Because of his success, he reduced Christ to a meer teacher of good things - like himself - and people look to him and admire him greatly, but aren't pointed to Christ through him or his work. He didn't slow down decay, he drove it deeper in. In saying this, I hope I am not judging his eternal destiny, because I do not know his heart. As far as I know, he never attributed his success to Christ.

In my heart I always contrast Ghandhi with Abraham Lincoln. He had a lot of will power too, but he wasn't ashamed to admit he needed God. Now there's the man to follow, not the one who couldn't submit to God.

Please forgive me. It always annoyed me in school - whenever we were required to write an essay about some great person in history, everyone picked Gandhi. I'll let you guess who I picked. =)

Please forgive me, I wasn't going to say anything at all, but the mention of Ghandi triggered my tongue. I better go search my heart and find the poison I need to confess!

In Christ,
Mary.

[John Charmley]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

As ever, an interesting set of comments which make us think, and direct us to an Orthodox way of doing so.

You ask
I wonder if it's possible for those outside the Church to recognize (except in rare cases of crisis) that they are outside of the Church.
which nicely begs our main question here, namely the nature of the Church. But I suspect there is a straightforward answer, as well as a more complex one. If those outside the Church did not recognise it, there would be very few, if any, converts into the Church; so the question, at that level, answers itself in the affirmative.

In Christ,

John

[Celinda Grace]

Fr. Raphael,

Thanks for the clarification on the context of the hospital image.


Warning a bit of defensiveness ahead, :) but centered around honest questions at least


Rather the Church is simply put the place where Christ is known because through living communion with Him it is His Body and we are called to be His members.

Now about whether the Church exists "in degrees and levels of sorts" relates to how Christ is known. To the degree that Christ is incorrectly known or it is incomplete in some fundamental sense then that work of healing creation of sin and death is either violated or left fundamentally incomplete no matter what is attempted. This is not the Church for it is not pointed in the direction of full knowledge of Christ as is the Divine/human Body of Christ.

Since all however are still in the process of moving towards their completion those aware that their position is fundamentally incomplete and in need of something else could very well be moving towards the Church at some point.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

What is the difference between a person in the Orthodox church whose knowledge of Christ is incomplete but who is moving in the right direction and the Protestant outside the Orthodox church whose knowledge is incomplete but who is also moving in the right direction? Will they not end up meeting at the same place eventually?

You might say that in the latter case there is no living communion with Christ but this I have to absolutely deny from my own experience of living in the PC Church. It may be a fractured incomplete communion but communion there is nevertheless. The problem in the PC is two fold. I would contend that the truth is there for those who are willing to pursue it. It is the same truth that is in the OC. It is just that the truth tends to be fractured and found in bits and pieces rather then a coherent whole. However, as God heals the person these pieces come together. Also the truth is incomplete, but when one gets to the end of what the PC has to offer and realizes that one is still incomplete, then one can look for the completion elsewhere.

These verses to me speak of the condition of the church as much as the condition of the individual.

Hosea 6:1"Come, let us return to the LORD.
He has torn us to pieces
but he will heal us;
he has injured us
but he will bind up our wounds.
2 After two days he will revive us;
on the third day he will restore us,
that we may live in his presence.

3 Let us acknowledge the LORD;
let us press on to acknowledge him.
As surely as the sun rises,
he will appear;
he will come to us like the winter rains,
like the spring rains that water the earth."

[Theophrastus]

Having said that, I have a problem with Gandhi, that I hope Gandhi fans will forgive me for.



Ghandhi did what he did because of the sheer power of his will. Admirable. But because he was able to do all that Christ taught, without Christ's help, he had no need for Christ. Because of his success, he reduced Christ to a meer teacher of good things - like himself - and people look to him and admire him greatly, but aren't pointed to Christ through him or his work. He didn't slow down decay, he drove it deeper in. In saying this, I hope I am not judging his eternal destiny, because I do not know his heart. As far as I know, he never attributed his success to Christ.

In my heart I always contrast Ghandhi with Abraham Lincoln. He had a lot of will power too, but he wasn't ashamed to admit he needed God. Now there's the man to follow, not the one who couldn't submit to God.

Please forgive me. It always annoyed me in school - whenever we were required to write an essay about some great person in history, everyone picked Gandhi. I'll let you guess who I picked. =)

Please forgive me, I wasn't going to say anything at all, but the mention of Ghandi triggered my tongue. I better go search my heart and find the poison I need to confess!

In Christ,
Mary.

I'm not a Gandhian, or even a Gandhi-fan (!), and I know you're not simply trying to criticize Gandhi for the sake of criticism -- I think Gandhi himself would be the first to volunteer that he is not free from criticism, or mistakes. Having said that, I think that Gandhi's relationship to Christ is complicated by the simple fact that Gandhi was Hindu, and as a Hindu, Gandhi had Hindu-framed perspectives on Christ. I don't know exactly how Gandhi saw Christ, whether he saw Christ as simply a good teacher (which I doubt), or whether he saw Christ as a divinely-inspired prophet (more likely), or whether he saw Christ as a full-fledged incarnation of the divine (quite possibly) -- but all these perspectives would be consistent within a Hindu-framework. However, Gandhi himself (even if he did recognize Christ as a full-fledged incarnation of the divine) was a devotee of Lord Rama, whom he recognized as a full-fledged incarnation of the divine, and whose name was on Gandhi's lips when Gandhi was assassinated. (Gandhi practiced "nama-japa", the continuous, heart-felt repetition of God's name.) Gandhi believed in, and practiced as he knew how, surrender to God, which is called bhakti yoga.

In short, I think to say that Gandhi did what he did purely by sheer will, without the need or desire for divine inspiration and succor, misses the fact that Gandhi, as a Hindu, believed that he did receive such inspiration, succor, and grace from God, via Lord Rama, God's incarnation. Of course, Christians believe that Christ is the only incarnation of God, yet Gandhi, as far as I know, wasn't concerned with denigrating or outright denying such Christian doctrine. He simply surrendered to God, as he understood God. And the fact that he did so, even as a Hindu, undoubtedly has inspired many Christians who lived after him, to rediscover their own Christian roots and take up their crosses themselves.

In peace,

[Father David Moser]

What is the difference between a person in the Orthodox church whose knowledge of Christ is incomplete but who is moving in the right direction and the Protestant outside the Orthodox church whose knowledge is incomplete but who is also moving in the right direction? Will they not end up meeting at the same place eventually?

The difference is in the submission of the will. An Orthodox Christian "whose knowledge of Christ is incomplete but who is movng in the right direction" is taking his direction from the Church and is being guided in all things by the Church so that even if his knowledge is incomplete, he still submits to the guidance of the Church to determine the "right direction" in which to move. Th Protestant "whose knowledge is incomplete but who is also moving in the right direction" depends on his own will, what he percieves as the "right direction" but he has only the most general "map" of what the right direction might be and how to find the way in which to move. If you and I both start on the West Coast and move in the same direction - east - we might meet in Washington DC, but then we might also end up one in NYC and the other in Charleston SC - not at all the same place. But if one of us has a detailed road map and the other only a general map of the US showing the states and not much else then the one with the map has a much better chance of ending up in DC while the other will end up almost anywhere from Massachusettes to Virginia - or he may not end up there at all, being caught in a snowstorm on 20,000 foot peak in the Rockies, or stuck in the Mississippi mud or lost in the Appalachians - not fully knowing the terrain or dangers in which he might land due to his incomplete map. Yes we might end up in the same place - but then we might not. God, who loves mankind and desires that none should be lost but that all should be saved, offers to us a complete
and comprehensive map - and a guide (the saints, our guardian angel) to follow who know the way. But some, thinking they know the way, find the map and the guide too "restrictive" or too "structured" or too "outdated" for their taste (or whatever other reason might be given) and so refuse the help that God gives and go off on their own. We hope and pray that they make it to the end and find the proper destination, but they are missing all the tools needed to insure a good and profitable journey.

Look at the parable of the 10 virgins. The 5 wise virgins were fully prepared and so met the bridegroom and entered in with him. But the 5 foolish virgins - although they had the "basics" right - were ill prepared and so missed the coming of the bridegroom and were shut out of the Kingdom.

Fr David Moser

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

I don't think that is a fair categorisation.

There are a great many Orthodox who are led by their own will, and a great many non-Orthodox who seek, as far as God has given them grace and guidance, to subject themselves to His will.

When I was born it was into a very devout Evangelical family and I tried to follow my father's example of a life lived in the service of God, as far as I understood it. I had no knowledge that an Orthodox tradition existed until I was in my early 20s, and all of my early contacts with Eastern Orthodox made me doubt that it could ever be a spiritual home, not least because I was told by Eastern Orthodox that I should become an Anglican, which was the Orthodox Church for English people. Since it was not the will of God that I be born into an Orthodox household, or have the Orthodox Faith witnessed to me by any Orthodox Christian, it seems rather harsh to categorise all of my life as driven by my own will.

I was reminiscing with my father yesterday about a Brethren evangelistic organisation, Counties Evangelisation. This was a ministry which travelled round the towns and villages, erecting a large tent and preaching the Gospel of life in Jesus Christ. I remembered a dear saint, in the widest sense, who had given his whole life, with his wife, to sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. And there are a great many Evangelical saints whose shoelaces I am not worthy to untie. In my own experience it is wrong to say that they were all driven by self-will, just as I dispute the words of the Eastern Orthodox saint referenced earlier who categorises all of these godly men as being without any hope of salvation. It is just not true because in the villages and towns all around me there are still NO Eastern Orthodox who are sharing the faith. There are no tents being erected by Eastern Orthodox to preach life in Christ. Most people in my own county have never met an Eastern Orthodox Christian. If the only map is that provided by Eastern Orthodoxy then why are Eastern Orthodox not out every day seeking to save those who have no hope of salvation because they are not members of the visible Eastern Orthodox communion? If it is only Eastern Orthodoxy that has the map then why is it not being shared in my part of the world?

Thank God for the non-Orthodox men and women who may only have vague road directions but are doing just that. They put me to shame. They are the wise virgins because with the understanding God has granted them they are giving all to the Bridegroom. Yet a great many Orthodox including myself are unprepared and do little or nothing to share the life and grace God has given them.

It is not my intention to offend, but I know and have known so many godly men and women, saintly men and women even, that I must reject the idea that they are only guided by their own will, and even more so the idea that they have no hope of salvation.

Peter

[Father David Moser]

There are a great many Orthodox who are led by their own will, and a great many non-Orthodox who seek, as far as God has given them grace and guidance, to subject themselves to His will.

No question about that. However that was not the question at all. You are interjecting a dynamic into my comments that was not there, nor was it meant to be there.

I did not at all bring in the idea of a person devoutly following the wrong directions, even some that are mostly right, but still wrong.


When I was born it was into a very devout Evangelical family and I tried to follow my father's example of a life lived in the service of God, as far as I understood it. I had no knowledge that an Orthodox tradition existed until I was in my early 20s,

This is almost identical to my own story to this point. Somewhere in my adolescent years, being raised by my parents (both teachers) to ask difficult questions in the pursuit of the truth, I discovered that the "map" and "directions" I had been following were incomplete and in some places just plain wrong. The search for the right path lead me squarely to the doors of the Orthodox Church (and still it took me 4 years to be baptized). Can I say that my parents damned or that they will never enter the kingdom of God because they didn't travel my path - Lord have mercy, no. But I can tell you that when we talk about our spiritual lives together, we agree on almost everything but submission to the authority of the Church. They may have stumbled onto mostly the right path and so advanced in their spiritual lives more than I - but still they resist the idea of any kind of real spiritual authority of the Church, even in the persons of the ordained clergy of the Church or of Holy Tradition or of the Fathers, over any person (including themselves). They are driven by their own will in that they follow Christ - in the way that they see fit and understand. I don't konw if they could ever let go of that control. Will they be eternally damned because of that? Not my call - but I grieve that they have sacrificed their whole lives for Christ and yet do not enjoy all that He can give them because they refuse to set aside their own will.


If the only map is that provided by Eastern Orthodoxy then why are Eastern Orthodox not out every day seeking to save those who have no hope of salvation because they are not members of the visible Eastern Orthodox communion? If it is only Eastern Orthodoxy that has the map then why is it not being shared in my part of the world?

Again, a dymanic that is not part of the original comments. We are sinners. We should be out doing just as you say - but we don't because we are weak, we are sinners, we do not fully live the life of Christ in our daily existence. But that still does not change the original point that the Church is the ark of Salvation.


It is not my intention to offend, but I know and have known so many godly men and women, saintly men and women even, that I must reject the idea that they are only guided by their own will, and even more so the idea that they have no hope of salvation.

Again you are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say that the non-Orthodox were being guided only by their own will nor did I even come clost to suggesting that they have no hope of salvation. By their own will they have chosen to use an incomplete map using a possibly faulty understanding of the directions. Will Christ abandon them because of that - of course not - but it will make thier journey all the more difficult and increase the chance that they will miss the mark. Perhaps it would be better to say that they are willfully less prepared than they should be and therefore run the risk of missing the bridegroom when He comes. Not that they will, but that they run the risk (to a greater or lesser degree) because of their own willfulness. And how about then those Orthodox Christians who having all the tools willfully reject them or misuse them or neglect them. Will the mere fact of their formal membership in a particular human organization (note here I am not talking about the divine/human organism of the Church) in which the Church is found guarantee them entrance. Not by any stretch of the imagination. In fact it will probably be more difficult at the coming of the bridegroom for they will be unprepared, even though they had everything at hand - they had oil for their lamps, but neglected to use it and so the lamp goes dark and they miss out. Or they are admitted but then cast out because they are not attired in the festal garment (having seen the light they are deprived of it by their own willfulness - what a great sorrow, truly the stuff of weeping and gnashing of teeth). (Matt 25:1-13 and Matt 22:2-14)

On a personal note: Again, Peter, it seems you have difficulty with the nature of the Church as a living divine/human organism rather than an earthly organization with rules and membership lists. I could easily be in error, not knowing you and all, however, it does appear to me that this issue consistently has caused you difficulty in grasping the essence of some of the discussions on this list. As I said, I could be in error - and if so, then ignore my observations since they are baseless, but I do offer them in the hope that they will assist you in some way in your spiritual life and growth.

Fr David Moser

[John]

Hi John Charmley and everyone else.

I'd like to see some concrete evidence for this strange claim you're making, that 'ecumenical' refers to the imperial extent of the councils involved.

This is a strange academic hyperbole I've never heard a serious scholar make.

Yours,
John

[John Charmley]

Hi John Charmley and everyone else.

I'd like to see some concrete evidence for this strange claim you're making, that 'ecumenical' refers to the imperial extent of the councils involved.

This is a strange academic hyperbole I've never heard a serious scholar make.

Yours,
John

Dear John,

If you go as far back as my post 79 you'll find the evidence there. I think most people would call Professor Brock a 'serious scholar', and one hardly given to 'hyperbole' - academic or polemical.

In Christ,

John

[Father David Moser]

in the villages and towns all around me there are still NO Eastern Orthodox who are sharing the faith. There are no tents being erected by Eastern Orthodox to preach life in Christ. Most people in my own county have never met an Eastern Orthodox Christian. If the only map is that provided by Eastern Orthodoxy then why are Eastern Orthodox not out every day seeking to save those who have no hope of salvation because they are not members of the visible Eastern Orthodox communion? If it is only Eastern Orthodoxy that has the map then why is it not being shared in my part of the world?


These words of Peter's provoke some thought in me. I am, both a mission and missionary priest and so the importance of preaching not only Christianity, but Orthodox Christianity to those around me who have not found this Pearl of Great Price to be exceedingly great. To that I am initiating a new discussion thread "Missionary Work - what do you do? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3760)" so that we can share with each other about our missionary efforts.

Fr David Moser

[John Charmley]

Dear Peter, Dear Fr. David,

An interesting and illuminating exchange.

Would I be correct to draw the inference that in writing about 'submission to the Church', Fr. David would be referring to the Orthodox Church which others would call the 'Eastern Orthodox' Church, and that submission to an Oriental Orthodox Church would not count? If so, that would give us a good definition of his idea of the nature and boundaries of the Church, and it would be one shared by, I guess, the majority here.

This, I think, would take us back to the original discussion where +Kallistos was taking a somewhat different view, and would, of course, raise the questions mentioned there.

I sense a kind of defensiveness drifting into this, which is what I had rather hoped we could avoid; if we are going to develop a language in which this subject can be discussed, rather than a series of assertions being made, it is essential that we respect the deeply felt and sincerely held beliefs of others - even if this opens one to charges of being 'western' and 'eirenic' in the bad sense.

We need also, surely, to understand that neither Fr. David, nor anyone else, is making the claim that anyone outside the (Eastern) Orthodox Church is damned; as he says, that is God's decision. To quote +Kallistos:

But there also 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…. Of course (so the 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.
Now that seems eminently reasonable - although those whom the good bishop terms 'rigorists' (a term which in my original post I disliked, and still do for the reasons there given) might not like it; I am happier with Fr. David's formulation, if only because it avoids categorising those who hold the belief with a different nuance from one's own.

Because it is quite a time since post no. 1, let me remind new (and old) readers of the quotation from the Patrick Barnes review of +Kallistos' book, where, writing about certain types of 'ecumenism' he comments:

by failing honestly to confront the heterodox about their heresy, true
ecclesial status, and the claims of the Church; and by failing to explain forthrightly that true Christian unity can only be achieved by a return to Holy Orthodoxy, such ecumenists undermine that very unity which they claim to be seeking.
Now it may be that, very politely, but firmly, that is what Fr. David is doing to those of us outside his (wholly Orthodox) definition of 'the Church'. That is surely not only his right, but his bounden duty?

On the other side, +Kallistos comes in with
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 judgment on non-Orthodox Christians
and I do not think that Fr. David was doing that - he was just pointing out, gently but firmly, his view. It is the possible space between that, and the view of +Kallistos, which seems worth exploring.

So I hope we can take a properly 'eirenic' view on this. (And for those reaching for their keyboards, do, please, refer to the very first post on this thread, where I acknowledge the critical reading of 'eirenic' - but I decline to be put off a perfectly good word, which does express my viewpoint, because others have misused it, and yet others feel driven to the defensive by it).

In Christ,

John

[Antonios]

Dear John,

I don't think Father David is expressing his view out of 'bounded duty', but as what the (Eastern) Orthodox Church believes and what he himself believes. He is not passing judgment, but a belief- a belief anyone may choose to believe or not. On account of these beliefs, he alone will have to answer before God. In fact, we all will.

The Spirit moves as it wills.... We know..... The Lord said so. And many whom we assume are not in the Church (according to our respective definitions), will likely get there before us, respectively (at least, before me). This is orthodox Christian teaching. This was the message to the Gentiles. Paul stood his ground against Peter over this belief.

What the 'boundaries of the Church are' cannot be seen. They cannot be touched. They are beyond our understanding. Apostolically, it has been the promise by the Lord that "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall looseon earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18) This is a serious statement and an awesome responsibility in which the Apostles had been granted. The Early Church maintained these views and 'handed over' such responsibilties to other believers by the laying of hands. And so begins the term we call 'apostolic succession'... easy enough to keep track of the boundaries, right? But, of course, we humans do what we do best and insert our own will before God's. Only this time, we cannot blame Adam!

Christ's Church has been attacked, it has been ravaged, it has suffured tragedies and schisms. There are not enough days in the year to commemorate every martyr who has died defending the Truth. It has been surrounded on all sides by it enemies. And what has kept it strong is not soley due to the various personalities who have fought to defend it, but because of its inherent, eternal, and life-giving Truth. This is Truth regarding the Holy Trinity. Truth in who Jesus Christ is. This is how the Ecumenical Councils apply to us (Eastern) Orthodox Christians. This is precisely why there is still schism between the Churches. (though, I pray every day there would be none). There are boundaries, for sure, we simply can't see them.

Of course, some of what I have written may make me sound like an arrogant and uncompromising heathen, and I would be the first to agree with you. It doesn't change, however, the fact that what has continued the aposotolic Churches (EO, OO, RC, etc) to survive even up until now is their defense at all costs for the Truth. And this is where the 'boundaries of the Church' disappear, and we are all left wondering...

I am not against ecumenism. In fact, I sincerely pray for it. How unity will happen, if He wills, is up to God in His great Wisdom. I am too insignificant a sinner to make any recongnizable difference. The best I can do is to pray. But when we start discussing 'boundaries' of the Church, we make good progress in learning about eachother. This inter-communion through dialogue is a wonderful and appropriate way to begin to understand what divides us and what unites us, and how we can heal old wounds.

But once we start trying to define 'boundaries' and 'limits' of the Church, we have to simply say, we don't know. Lord have mercy.

[Celinda Grace]

The difference is in the submission of the will. An Orthodox Christian "whose knowledge of Christ is incomplete but who is movng in the right direction" is taking his direction from the Church and is being guided in all things by the Church so that even if his knowledge is incomplete, he still submits to the guidance of the Church to determine the "right direction" in which to move. The Protestant "whose knowledge is incomplete but who is also moving in the right direction" depends on his own will,

St. Symeon the New Theologian, On Faith

The first of these three passages read as follows: 'If you desire spiritual health listen to your conscience, do all it tells you, and you will benefit....And from that time on he never went to bed with his conscience reproaching him...Thus he followed it scrupulously, and as daily it increased it demands, in a few days he had greatly added to his evening office.

There is a general recognition in the PC that submission to one's conscience is necessary and also a general recognition that it is God who renews the conscience and acts through it making it more sensitive as one grows. The story of St. Symeon which happened in a few days is in general the story that the Protestant lives over a lifetime, except that few journey so far. There is also a general recognition that the inner promptings of the Spirit need to be listened for and obeyed in faith, even at cost to self, even when they don't make sense. Missionaries, evangelists and other servants are often doing what they do, not in hope of some gain or recognition, or even reward from God, but simply from obedience to the Spirit within. Now I guess to accept this one must accept that the Spirit really is within the PC and I don't know where you stand on this.

There is a song that we sing in our church. The chorus goes -"Without condition, no reservation, I lay down my life into Your hands. Without condition, no reservation, Lord have your full way in me." It expresses the disposition we are aiming at.

If we fail in trying to have this disposition and end up retaining control of our own lives to some extent, is this because we are rebellious or because we are weak?

The problems in the PC stem more, I think, from needing a fuller truth then needing a sticter obedience. If a person does not care to obey their conscience are they going to care to obey the authority of the OC? Can anything really be done for such a person? Now if someone is timid or uncertain in trying to sort out all the conflicting things that tend to be in the conscience then some greater exterior authority like that of the OC can help.

Of course a lot of this depends on what particular part of the PC one is dealing with. There is certainly a lot of dying branches out there. My comments are geared mostly toward describing those parts of the PC that are alive and growing.

[John Charmley]

Dear Antionios,

I quite agree, and by 'bounden' duty I was merely using an old Anglican expression which means exactly what you wrote - which is that Fr. David is expressing what the Church believes.

You write
Of course, some of what I have written may make me sound like an arrogant and uncompromising heathen, and I would be the first to agree with you. It doesn't change, however, the fact that what has continued the aposotolic Churches (EO, OO, RC, etc) to survive even up until now is their defense at all costs for the Truth. And this is where the 'boundaries of the Church' disappear, and we are all left wondering...
and I can only say that to me there is no arrogance nor yet heathendom in your real eirenic tone; just a Christian humility and a love of Truth, for which I am grateful. You express the purpose of a thread like this when you say
But when we start discussing 'boundaries' of the Church, we make good progress in learning about each other. This inter-communion through dialogue is a wonderful and appropriate way to begin to understand what divides us and what unites us, and how we can heal old wounds.

Some time ago one of our fellow posters here asked why someone who was not even Eastern Orthodox would spend time on a forum like this; you have given the answer better than I did at that time.

Ecclesiologically we each of us know where the boundaries of our Church are. What is said about those outside 'the Church' by 'rigorists' in the EO is probably said by 'rigorists' within my own Church. As I have said, I dislike the adjective because it precludes discussion and prejudges its outcome. The real difficulties come when we are convinced that only within our own Church can salvation be had. Now I don't quite see anyone quite being that blunt, if only because none of us is arrogant enough to presume we can speak for God. We tend to talk about where the 'fulness' of the Faith can be found, and where the best 'spiritual treatment' is to be had. Such language is more helpful than the way Christians have sometimes spoken of each other.

I was most moved by what Fr. David wrote about his parents, even as I am by the anguish and the loving faith that is in your post. Through such contacts, through such dialogue perhaps we can each reach a better understanding of where there may be real divisions, and where our own sinful ways still lead us to elude His loving commands to 'be one'.

In Christ,

John

[Tim Grass]

There's something foreign about this conversation....

"What are the limits of the Church?" This is a question that's not really a question in Orthodoxy, because we're taught not to think in these kinds of jurisdictional terms about God's grace..... we're taught what the Church is, why it us and who we are in it. But we're told that questions like "how for does it go," "are x y and valid outside as they are inside" and so on are questions that try to fit the Church into a foreign mold. I dont have any doubts some people find them interesting....... but they're very much "extra-ecclesial" kinds of questions.

Now, some people will respond badly to this..... there'll be running off to lament that this kind of view makes the Chuch "closed minded" or "inward looking" ... and there will be some gnashing of teeth claiming that people who hold this view are "afraid of asking questions" or holding the Church up to intellectual study. These are the usual excuses from people who have already determined how the Church is supposed to think of its relationship to the world and to other churches.

But I for one think this thread has very little potential to come to a real understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology by continuing to focus on trying to make those in the Church define the Church in the categories of those outside it.

--tim

[Peter Farrington]

I was quoting St Ilarion who has been quoted in this thread as saying..


Schismatics are deprived of the hope of salvation not only because their baptism is invalid, but also because they are outside the Church and in enmity with it.

I think that he would have a very negative view of all the godly people that you and I have known and loved. Indeed as quoted earlier he says that all these people are actually evil.

This saint seems to be very clearly saying that those outside the church are deprived of the hope of salvation.

This is why I find it confusing that some participants on the thread are saying one thing, that we should not investigate the boundaries of the Church, while others are using fathers such as St Ilarion to make the boundaries very clear indeed.

Father David, I don't think I view the Church in institutional terms at all, rather primarily as a divine/human organism. But it seems to me that some EO conflate that divine/human organism entirely to the institution of the Eastern Orthodox communion. I think this is where the problem lies. And as has been suggested, I think one reason for this conflation is the Imperial nature of Eastern Orthodoxy.

I could never agree with St Ilarion because I DO believe the Church is a divine/human organism. It seems to me that it is those who follow his position who make the Church merely the same as the institution and organisation of a particular group. This is why I believe that Eastern Orthodox are also Orthodox Christians.

Peter

[Tim Grass]

This is why I find it confusing that some participants on the thread are saying one thing, that we should not investigate the boundaries of the Church....

Who has suggested this?

--tim

[Peter Farrington]

Lots of people Tim, read back over the posts.

In fact YOU have just said that it is a non-question which is the same as saying it should not be investigated.

Peter

[Tim Grass]

Lots of people Tim, read back over the posts.

In fact YOU have just said that it is a non-question which is the same as saying it should not be investigated.

Peter, I must thank you for in a kind of way making my point. I didn't say this. I did say that certain people who had already made up their minds about how the Church should define itself would take my kind of statements in this way... in fact, I said:


Now, some people will respond badly to this..... there'll be running off to lament that this kind of view makes the Chuch "closed minded" or "inward looking" ... and there will be some gnashing of teeth claiming that people who hold this view are "afraid of asking questions" or holding the Church up to intellectual study. These are the usual excuses from people who have already determined how the Church is supposed to think of its relationship to the world and to other churches.

You have a pre-determined way in oyur mind that the Church is supposed to define itself.... and you've got a set of questions you think are useful. If people don't ask those questions, or engage in this way... you take it to mean they don't engage at all, won't ask questions, won't think.

What I suggested is that these kinds of questions are foreign to the way the Church thinks about herself. This is not at all the same thing, Peter.

--tim

[Tim Grass]

An example:

Language about salvation being "only in the Church" seems to really bother you, Peter, because it doesn't meet your expectations of how the jurisdictional territory of churches works. So it's set into this view, and is a problem..... given how you've already defined churches and their relationships, statements by someone (like Ilarion) that rattle them are basically impossible.... and you reject them. When someone (like me) says that the categories you're setting up to look at these things are different and foreign to the way the Church looks at itself in the world, you simply say we're not asking the questions or interested in discussing the situation. But there's no question that from your set of conclusions at the beginning, these comments are difficult and cause problems....... my point is that they're not the categories the Church usually uses.

It's a very closed minded and narrow view.

--tim

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,


some people will respond badly to this..... there'll be running off to lament that this kind of view makes the Chuch "closed minded" or "inward looking" ...
and then

It's a very closed minded and narrow view.

This directs us towards one of my initial concerns in starting this thread, but before moving back to consider it, I wonder if we can put the red herring of jurisdictions in a safe place and abandon it?

As it happens I can't see where Peter is referring to jurisdictional boundaries; what he is referring to are those who seem to be setting them by categorising their own jurisdiction as the only Church; a point of view which, as I hope I have made clear I find perfectly comprehensible, and it is indeed, meet, right and the bounden duty of those who hold that point of view to try to correct those they feel are outside the true Church. Such folk should bear the slings and arrows of being called intolerant or closed-minded as badges of honour, and not worry about western philosophical categorisations; St. Cyril was pretty 'narrow-minded' on the subject of correct soteriological and Christological thinking.

And that, perhaps, brings us to one of the points of this thread. The Councils of the Church wrestled with these vital points of soteriology (the whole Christological divide between St. Cyril and Nestorius mattered for that very reason). What do we do if we find that on these matters there is an identity of view between Christians who have long been sundered from each other?

There are a variety of possible responses, but one of them is to engage in such discussions as this; those who find such discussions repugnant, senseless or just not to their taste have, on a rough count, four dozen other threads on which they can contribute their moiety. When you say, Tim that
What I suggested is that these kinds of questions are foreign to the way the Church thinks about herself that may be so, but they are clearly not foreign to the way in which people within the Church think about these matters - as the briefest of associations with the works of +Kallistos shows - or, indeed, as the interesting discussions here show.

I remain convinced that Antonios is on to a useful thought when he says
But when we start discussing 'boundaries' of the Church, we make good progress in learning about each other. This inter-communion through dialogue is a wonderful and appropriate way to begin to understand what divides us and what unites us, and how we can heal old wounds.
Now it may be that you think these things are pretty pointless, I don't know, and if you do, then fair enough, why should you not; you may even be correct. But for those of us who feel there is a point if what Antonios says, there is some merit in these sorts of discussion - providing we can find a language in which to express our thoughts - which I think we are.

The defensiveness which creeps in about phrases such as 'closed-minded' or 'narrow' highlights one of my reasons for starting this thread; I am very uneasy with the way in which such concepts are used. They are essentially polemical devices to demonise one's 'enemy'. In a liberal society to be called 'conservative' or 'reactionary' is to be demonised. The BBC categorises the next French President (you read it here first) Nicolas Sarkozy as 'right-wing' - which is not a description, but a liberal attempt to tell the British that he is 'bad'. Likewise, liberal theologians in the west assume, from their assumption of that label, that they are the 'good guys'. All of this is what, I hope, we are trying to avoid here. As it happens, my own lexicon works on the opposite model - as I hear the word 'liberal' my knee jerks; but that is as wrong as the other model when it comes to a discussion intended to bring some understanding of the position of the other.

When you say, Tim, 'the Church' does not think in this way, is that a 'Church' different from those who are part of it and do think in that way? It seems a trifle reductionist to say that a Church that has been around for 2000 does not think about its nature and boundaries - the Councils are full of reflections on these matters - so is much more recent writing. If you mean that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not need to think about these things because it teaches that it is the Church, then that is fine and as it is; to categorise it as narrow-minded is to bring in a secular definition which, with all respect to those who hold otherwise, does not apply to the religious dimension.

Jesus said I am the Way, the Truth and the Life - not 'I think we ought to chat about these things and see if we can come to a consensus, chaps'. Which is not to say that there are not other ecclesiologies which would see their own articulation as the fullest expression of those things.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

A New Question

Dear Monachos Community,

When we consider such things as boundaries and limits of the Church, or as some others may say, the shape and dimension of the Church, what is really being considered as it relates to the nature of the Body of Christ?

This thread has been up and running for almost 5 full days now. There have been 105 posts that fill 6 pages.

Does this question matter? You tell me.

For two reasons, I have appreciated this thread as much, if not more, than the question "Are the body and blood still bread and wine?", as well as the thread which asks is "St. Isaac, a Nestorian?" Firstly, because, this thread takes us straight to the heart of the matter in a very open and honest way. And, secondly, but not any the less, there is a softening of sorts by some here, that I have not observed since I have signed on with this community. In fact, I think there is a window that has been opened in just the past 24 hours that has not been open before. And, this is why I am here now.

There has been a call for a language here that has been answered somewhat. I am seeing some speak from the heart here, like not before, which has drawn me out. There is a spirit here that is most pleasing in some of the most recent posts. On an increasing basis, I am seeing some come out of their foxholes and be willing to talk to each other. What a blessing. Admittedly, there is still one or two digging like mad and crouching, but these will always be with us, as they always have. But, God willing this beautiful new trend will continue.

And, I'm feeling like the optimist today, so I would like to ask a new question today, as it relates to specifically the Church, as it relates to her nature, her boundaries, and her limits. And, even more pointedly, I would like to ask, both in the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the present day, have there been and are there different schools of thought?

Can one provide evidence and clearly demonstrate that *within* Eastern Orthodoxy there are different schools of thought as it relates to the shape and dimension of the Church?

Are there different schools of thought?

And, as we may move in this direction, which I think could be most helpful, if not conclusive! . . . I would like to ask those who are digging away to please just stop for even a short bit. Yes, a coffee break! :)

And, also, in an effort to promote a continuation of a speaking from the heart in a most pleasing language here, I would like to share something that was shared with me, by a very wise person awhile back when I was somewhat shell-shocked from the cannon fire here. This is pure gold:




The 'trick' to the on-line medium is to not be affronted by the affronts. :) It's a different kind of medium for conversation than many, and has the shortcomings of people being unable to mediate comments by tone, gesture, etc., and so things at times feel more confrontational than really they are. Simply try to be 'apathetic' to the emotional side of the medium, and focus on what is important.



Today is Sunday. Hopefully, we have had, or we will have, a Beautiful experience in own parishes today. May we bring some of that Beauty into this thread today for what remains of it. May we "focus on what is important" as, God willing, we consider the question: Are there different schools of thought?

Peace and Love in Christ,
Rick

[Matthew Panchisin]

"Freedom is good when the person can use it appropriately. Otherwise it is a disaster."

Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Many thanks for a really helpful post, which does indeed get to the root of what is being done here. Too often discussions can slip into a contest for advantage, in which one can seem to be seeking to convince an other that one's own position is in some way the best place to be; here, I hope, we are consciously striving to avoid any such phenomenon, and trying, instead, to engage in hearing what it is that others are saying. None of us is under any obligation to be in the slightest bit 'convinced' of what the others are saying; but if we read and think, that is enough. Whether we accommodate that to our understanding of what the Church is and what it teaches, or whether it encourages us to think about what the Church and what it teaches, is up to each of us. For those who think that is an unsatisfactory way of being in this world, they will have their thoughts confirmed; as will those who see that as 'narrow minded'.

It would be interesting to explore your question
I would like to ask, both in the History of the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as the present day, have there been and are there different schools of thought? - although I guess even the notion might cause problems in some quarters; however, as my quotations from Patrick Barnes and +Kallistos show, there are certainly differences of opinion on this issue.

Earlier we were told that Orthodoxy was a 'correct knowledge of the person of Christ' - is that to be found only in one place? Without a tone of voice it would be easy to read that as a false eirenicism, inviting the comment 'narrow-minded' to the answer 'yes'. Well, let me repeat that that is not what is going on. If that is what someone thinks that that is what the Church is teaching, then why not say it? In trying to evolve a language in which these things can be discussed outside of fox-holes and barbed-wire, we can abandon military metaphors - and the mindset behind them.

On an entirely personal level I have no problem with someone saying out of love for my immortal soul that I am an heretic bound for a very sticky end. It is only my belief in the omnipotence of God and the Infinity of His mercy that allows me to entertain any hope at all; were I judged according to my estimate of my desserts and not according to His mercy and His justice, I should be quite lost. If others think that is so, I cannot argue - we are all in His hands.

So, again, Rick, my thanks for an enlightening post which, I hope, encourages further discussion.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

A few thoughts on the nature of the Church. I am going to try for the moment to speak in terms authentic to the nature of Orthodox ecclesiology as articulated in the writings of the fathers and liturgical / canonical language, without necessarily referring to specific writers here and there at this stage. I will be more than happy to explore specific documents relating to specific points here, if desired; but it seems more pressing that something more general be discussed for a time.

The Church’s identity is found in one place: the chalice. The mystery of the Body and Blood are the centre and heart of the Church’s life, which is a life directed toward the bringing of humanity into communion with its creator. The Eucharist is the definition of this union in the present created experience—the mystery of human relation in God and to all creation.

The Church understands the necessary singularity of ‘Church’ as rooted in this centre of her being. She is the bride and body of the one Christ, encountered in the one cup. There can be no more multiplicity of Church than there can be multiplicity of Christ, since the Church is the community of life in Christ joined with him in the eucharistic mystery.

Within the Orthodox Church, this centrality of experience in Christ grounds confession of belief in ‘one holy catholic and apostolic Church…’: not chiefly as a commentary on other bodies, pro or con, but as a confession of the genuine experience of the unique Son of God in this sacramental life. The Creed is, after all, used principally by the Church not as a dogmatic article (though it does have this use), but as an entry into the mystery of the Eucharist. It is, liturgically, the ‘introduction’ to the anaphora—the prayers that consolidate around the chalice. As the chalice about to be sanctified, offering to God what is already God’s and receiving back God himself, is linked to and becomes the unique and indivisible, immutable nature of the person there met, so the confession of those about to receive him states that the Church is one even as the Son is one.

The Church is rooted and defined in this. Her canons define the life that orientates properly to this mystery; her scriptures proclaim the nature of it. The writings of her fathers are understood as primarily the fruits of this experience and communion, that have the value of leading others into it.

It is in this context that the Orthodox Church insists, in some ways more directly than others, on the singularity of Church. If there is one Christ, by Orthodox ecclesiology there is one Church; and as Christ is the one Name that leads to the Kingdom, the one saviour of humankind, then the one Church is the one haven of that salvation. Hence the great preponderance of comments—in the canons, in the fathers, in the hymns—that speak of the Church as the one ark and way of salvation. ‘Without the Church as mother, one cannot have God as Father’. ‘The Church is the only path of salvation’. ‘We have seen the true light, we have found the one faith’. If the one Christ is the one saviour of the world, then only in the singular engagement with this one Christ is salvation kept genuinely Christian—grounded in Christ himself.

How to answer, then, the question of the multitude of churches?

In Orthodox ecclesiology, the basic answer is in the adjective that follows ‘one’ and ‘holy’ in the creedal preparation of communion: the ‘apostolic Church’. The authentic life in Christ was the life commended to the care of the apostles, who, guided by the Spirit, have preserved that life—and the words and acts that lead to life—in the communion that follows their own foundation and succession. The Orthodox Church maintains the necessary union with this apostolic tradition as the very assurance of adherence to Christ rightly (orthos), rather than disparately or schismatically. Departure from this communion is not, in an Orthodox ecclesiology, to have ‘another church’, but to create something other than ‘Church’ as it is known in an Orthodox phronema. There cannot be ‘another Church’, much less a multiplicity of churches, when the very term Church is perceived as the concrete eucharistic participation in the one Christ, through the apostolically preserved ascesis of the mysteries and ways of Christ’s person.

This is an unpopular view in the modern religious mindset. It is a view which does not look to all, or even a small selection, of Christian bodies, as ‘equally Church’, because it is a view in which ‘Church’ in the plural simply has no meaning. This lack of concert with the categories of identification that are popular today—denominations, boundaries, limits, co-validities, etc.—then appears abrasive, if not wholly inappropriate, to a context that sees these as the only ways to approach ecclesiological questions. But to force Orthodox ecclesiology to speak in terms of ‘the limits of grace’, the ‘boundaries of the Church’, is to force upon it a denominationalist conception of Church that is, at its core, something foreign and other.

Tremendous energy can be poured into the project of doing this; but ultimately it bears little fruit—either from a denominationalist position that seeks to understand Orthodoxy in its own terms, and which ultimately cannot be satisfied by the attempt; nor from the position of the Church herself, which may wish to speak in this widespread context for pastoral reasons, but which finds that ultimately they never allow the full presentation of her authentic self-understanding. Moreover, these discussions often become quickly heated, primarily as those with a differing conception of ecclesiology see the Orthodox Church’s position as exclusivist and elitist in its view of ‘other churches’. But this very characterisation discloses two different paradigms at work—paradigms which don’t meet, and which indeed appear fraught to the other.

What are ‘the limits of the Church’? What does this question really mean? If the Church is the body of Christ, she has no limits; and yet, as Christ is not a concept of truth, but a person met and encountered and known, inauthentic experience yields a false relationship. Can salvation come ‘outside the Church’? Clearly not, from this understanding, since salvation can come only from Christ, in the Spirit of the Father. But does this then mean ‘other churches’ can also be the havens of salvation? Again, this is a denominationalist question that doesn’t mesh with Orthodox ecclesiology, in which the whole notion of ‘other Church’ is a false-category. This has difficult repercussions in our perceptions of human relationships today, given the fractures of community that have come about of history; but there is no ground to be made in giving up an Orthodox ecclesiology to try to mend schism and fracture.

Certain ‘case studies’, like that of St Isaac, which has been much discussed here of late, provide a ‘way in’ to the real questions of concern that drive much of this discussion—namely, ‘Can someone be saved who is not part of the Church is its physical, temporal reality in this world?’ Isaac was not a member of the Church’s eucharistic communion in his life, yet the Orthodox Church states very strongly that his is a saint of the Church, not a saint in some para-ecclesial sense. From a denominationalist standpoint, this position either makes no sense and is self-defeating, or is the ultimate claim of trans-denominational authority. But in Orthodox ecclesiology it is part of the understanding of one Church defined as the reality of one experience; an experience that can transfigure a life, or lives, which the fractures of sin may have set outside that living organism of the Church’s worldly life. On the one hand, this is to proclaim the great hope that comes in the witness of God’s grace—the grace of the Church, which is God’s body—working beyond the boundaries of sin and the human attempts to fracture what can never be broken; and at the same time to see that grace and that redemption as the ultimate fruit and evidence that the Church is ever and always one.

These are but a few thoughts—certainly nothing exhaustive, nor have I even tried to address the variety of questions that have already been posed in this thread. But I tend to agree with Mr Grass’s recent comments, that the category or framework of the thread thus far is itself something of a foreign stage.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Being a little mindful of the fact that this is a site devoted to Patristics, and of the relative want of patristic matter in this discussion, I wonder if that might be relieved by looking at one aspect of part of this discussion?

In insisting upon Apostolic succession, we are in the best of company. Irenaeus in Book 3, chapter 3, section 2 of his Against Heresies writes:

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
In section 4 of Book 3 chapter 3 we read

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, — a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics.
Tetullian, in his Prescription Against the Heretics Part 2 Chapter 28, directly addressed the view that the Holy Spirit could have allowed different interpretations to be put on the Faith given once to the Apostles, commenting:


Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his
testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church)
as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this
asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that
He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles, — is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?’

That rather stopped me in my tracks, and made me wonder what to make of it, not least in the context of this discussion; it seemed best to bring it to this forum for comment, since it could be read in a number of ways.

After reading it, something in its terminology struck me, and I went back to the works of the Joint Commission of bishops and theologians from Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian traditions, to find their declaration that
We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition.

I was then struck by their ninth point in their 1990 'Second Agreed Statement' that:

In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

I don't really want to get into all that again, but if we follow the Fathers in claiming authority for Christian truth on the ground of Apostolic tradition, and in asking where is that tradition to be found, and, with them answer 'the Church', then we have an answer of sorts - and the question posed by Tertullian. A little light, perhaps, from Patristic sources? Of a certainty, more than one line of thought on these matters

In Christ,

John

p.s. whilst this was being written, Matthew's excellent post was also coming forth. The discussion may be foreign to the ecclesiology of the Church as taken by Matthew and others here; it would seem not to be quite so 'foreign' to others within the same Church - unless, of course, +Kallistos, Fr. Romanides and others have misunderstood the direction of their own ecclesiology. I shall attempt to return to this when time has allowed for a fuller reading of a very serious contribution. JC

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I do not think many of us here doubt that there is 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church'. I don't think that is in doubt at all.

The question is not whether there are many churches, but how Christians who are not members of particular communities are related to others.

If I am able to consider the Eastern Orthodox as Orthodox it is because in some way I am allowed to consider them part of the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic church' not because I believe there are other Churches alongside my own Orthodox Church, nor because I believe that THE Church will be manifested only when various groups are united. I entirely believe that my own communion is the 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church'.

The questions for me then are not contrary to your position as described, which I substantially agree with. Of course I believe there is one Church, that it is formed eucharistically etc etc. But this says nothing about the relation of members of other Christian communities to THE Church.

There is only an absolute impasse if THE Church is solely identified with my own eucharistic community. I do not believe this is the case. But equally I do not believe that other communities - as communities - represent THE Church in the same way. Nor do I believe that everyone who says that they love Jesus is a member of THE Church, and especially not that whatever anyone who says they love Jesus believes is truth - it is not.

But I do wonder, at the very least, whether those who are outside the visible, eucharistic community of the Church are in the position of catechumens, coming to faith. This is why I believe it is an important matter to discuss and pray about. My own Orthodox Church has always received Byzantine Christians by confession and never by baptism, which shows that she has always understood that while standing against false Christologies she could recognise that those who came from the Byzantine communion were still Christian. Thus I do not believe that THE Church restricts membership of THE Church to those who are visibly part of my own eucharistic community. Your mileage may well vary in your own context.

I do not believe there are many Churches. But I do not believe that only those members of the Oriental Orthodox communion, which I understand to be THE Church are members of THE Church. St Isaac is a good example of course, but the other Eastern Orthodox communicants in my Church this morning, none of whom have been baptised by the Oriental Orthodox, are also examples.

My personal opinion is that 'in some way' the faithful Evangelicals I have known are also members of THE Church even while my Plymouth Brethren Assembly is NOT, in my opinion, THE Church. It is that 'in some way' I am interested in.

But if you believe that the question is not meaningful in your own context then I understand that. It does however seem to me that a great many Eastern Orthodox bishops DO think it is meaningful, and I have asked some of them personally and they have given encouraging answers to me.

Peter

[M.C. Steenberg]

But if you believe that the question is not meaningful in your own context then I understand that. It does however seem to me that a great many Eastern Orthodox bishops DO think it is meaningful, and I have asked some of them personally and they have given encouraging answers to me.

Dear Peter,

It is disappointing that you end your post in this way. I did not suggest that the question is not meaningful; I suggested that this way of approaching it is not helpful.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Matthew

I am not really sure why you take that position?

What does...


Again, this is a denominationalist question that doesn’t mesh with Orthodox ecclesiology, in which the whole notion of ‘other Church’ is a false-category

mean if not that it is not an 'Orthodox' question, and what does 'false-category' mean if not a category that has no meaning?

And others in this thread have explicitly said that this question is a meaningless question within an Eastern Orthodox context.

I have said that I agree substantially with your post. Therefore I would be very pleased if you went on to approach the question of the relationship of those faithful Christians outside of visible Eastern Orthodoxy to THE Church however you find helpful.

Peter

[John]

I have said that I agree substantially with your post. Therefore I would be very pleased if you went on to approach the question of the relationship of those faithful Christians outside of visible Eastern Orthodoxy to THE Church however you find helpful.

Peter

Dear Peter- Didn't he already do this when he wrote:

Certain ‘case studies’, like that of St Isaac, which has been much discussed here of late, provide a ‘way in’ to the real questions of concern that drive much of this discussion—namely, ‘Can someone be saved who is not part of the Church is its physical, temporal reality in this world?’ Isaac was not a member of the Church’s eucharistic communion in his life, yet the Orthodox Church states very strongly that his is a saint of the Church, not a saint in some para-ecclesial sense. From a denominationalist standpoint, this position either makes no sense and is self-defeating, or is the ultimate claim of trans-denominational authority. But in Orthodox ecclesiology it is part of the understanding of one Church defined as the reality of one experience; an experience that can transfigure a life, or lives, which the fractures of sin may have set outside that living organism of the Church’s worldly life. On the one hand, this is to proclaim the great hope that comes in the witness of God’s grace—the grace of the Church, which is God’s body—working beyond the boundaries of sin and the human attempts to fracture what can never be broken; and at the same time to see that grace and that redemption as the ultimate fruit and evidence that the Church is ever and always one.

[Celinda Grace]

Dear Matthew

The question is not whether there are many churches, but how Christians who are not members of particular communities are related to others.
Peter



What are ‘the limits of the Church’? What does this question really mean? If the Church is the body of Christ, she has no limits; INXC, Matthew

It seems to me that two different things are being discussed here. Maybe we should make two threads.

On one hand much of this discussion has not been about the nature of the Church but about the nature, the extent, and the reason for the existence of the boundaries that currently exist between particular communities.

In this I think we have been and touched the Church more then discussed it. If each one touches and explores the wall that divides us then in the moment we touch it, the wall that divides also unites. And in discovering a proper approach to the wall we find that the wall comes down and becomes a window. In looking through the window we discover the continuity of the landscape. We discover the Church.


On the other hand some of the discussion has centered around the nature of the Church itself rather then the nature of the boundaries that exist.

[John Charmley]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Perhaps it would help us out of this particular cul de sac if Matthew were to suggest a way of approaching the question which he did find useful?

In the meantime, I wonder whether the thoughts expressed by Tertullian in my last post might persuade us to take this in a more Patristic direction and away from where it may be going?

Peter is certainly correct to say that the first six paragraphs of Matthew's important and substantial contribution to the discussion are ones with which many of us would agree; I can imagine no one from my own communion who would dissent from anything there written; which is, perhaps, why the question is worth exploring if we can find a useful way of so doing? It is not about a multiplicity of Churches - although that might also be a useful thread - and Matthew's going down that route, whilst interesting, may have a touch of redness and the whiff of the herring about it; to avoid accusations, let me say I am very fond of red herrings and often dine on them myself.

But if we come back to the notion of the 'Apostolic' Church, perhaps some comments of St. Basil's will help us forward?

In his Book on the Holy Spirit, in chapter 6, St. Basil reminds us:

But we do not rest only on the fact that such is the tradition of the
Fathers; for they too followed the sense of Scripture, and started from the
evidence which, a few sentences back, I deduced from Scripture and laid
before you.

He also reminds us of the importance of unwritten tradition in deducing Apostolicity:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly
enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from
written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; — no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.
In Chapter 29 he is equally explicit:

For I hold it apostolic to abide also by the unwritten traditions. “I praise you,” it is said, “that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you;” and “Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word, or our Epistle.” One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their successors, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time.
St. Basil seems to be guiding us towards a means of delineating the nature and boundaries of 'the Church' here. The Orthodox ecclesiology thus enunciated surely has some bearing on our discussion?

In Christ,

John

[Andrew]

If someone is not partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not a part of the Church. The Church is the Eucharist is the Theanthropos. People who are not sacramentally united to the Church might by the Grace of God reflect aspects of Orthodoxy, and this is good. God works everywhere. But at the same time, these people are not within the Church. They are who they are by the existence and ministry of the Church. All that is good in the piety of an evangelical comes from the prayers of the Godman communion known as the Orthodox Church. If the Church had not compiled the Bible, these groups would not exist. If the Orthodox Church had not missionized the British islands, Europe, etc., they would not culturally have Christ as a part of their history to fall back on. What is bad about Protestantism comes from the passions and the demons, and what is good comes from the Church, by God's grace. We should not shoot down what is good about the Protestant/Catholic faiths, but we should recognize it as a remnant of their lost Orthodox communion.

In addition, it is not fruitful to take the example of extreme cases, like Saint Isaac, or Nicetas the Goth... or select Georgian saints. These particulars have been included by the dispensation and divine grace of the Church as her own.

It is not the faith handed down to us by our Fathers to try to pick apart and reinvent our ecclesiology. Those who partake of the most pure mysteries beside us are the Church. Those who do not are not. They might have a healthy piety, which is commendable. They might have great evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit within them. This is just more reason to invite them into the Church! But we cannot make fruitless speculation about the "limits of the Church." For our own salvation, the limits are clear. Let us stop going outside our own quest for salvation. God will have mercy. Let us live the life we are called to within the Bosom of Christ within the Church, and let us invite others to partake of this great and divine Mystery.

[John Charmley]

Dear Andrew,

I would not wish to disagree, but think it possible to discuss this on another level; indeed, if we stick to the ecclesiological one, there is in truth not much to discuss, except to say that some Orthodox see room for discussion even there, whilst many do not - and, at best, it leads to the sort of dialogue outlined in the very first post in this thread, which was, after all, between two Eastern Orthodox scholars.

The reason for bringing in the Patristic sources which were mentioned in my last few posts, is to try to explore the nature of Church in its sacramental and ascetical character. Unless we believe that God's Grace is confined to one visible communion, then an exploration of its activity is surely not without value?

To say, as you do
If someone is not partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, they are not a part of the Church is still to beg questions about Apostolicity which are not quite answered by an assertion, however accurate and understandable, of one's own ecclesiology; that many could do.

Previously an argument has been mounted for an approach to history that accounts for continuities as well as discontinuities. The quotations from St, Basil in my last post reminds us of how the undivided Church approached these matters. No one is arguing (I hope) that ecclesiologically Christians are one; that would be a trifle pointless. The sacramental and ascetical activity of God's Grace seems, however, not to be so confined, and along that axis lies the track of the discussion being attempted here.

Your points are well made and are taken, but when you write
Let us stop going outside our own quest for salvation I would take leave to say that for some, such a discussion may be part of that quest. The guidelines of your own Church suggest as much at http://www.scoba.us/resources/documents/guide_for_orthodox.pdf

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

It is late evening as I write this, so it will I fear rather ramble than be concise. But a few further thoughts before the week becomes customarily busy.

A background in the oneness of the Church, and the one haven of salvation.

The starting-point of an authentic look at Orthodox perceptions of Church, which is the only helpful starting-point for looking at the question of perceptions and relations to those outside it, must involve taking full gauge of the centrality and singularity that makes so many uncomfortable. That ‘the Church is one’ since Christ is one, and that only in the Church is there salvation since only Christ is Saviour, are essential ingredients in a genuine Orthodox ecclesiology. And this unity and singularity of the Church is explicitly linked to the eucharistic unity of the chalice. This was brought out from the very earliest day. The understanding is exemplified in a passage of St Ignatius:

‘Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine, he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to celebrate one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God; for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons’ ([I]Epistle to the Philadelphians 3.3-4.1).
The perception of eucharistic unity binds the ecclesia, the community, to the sacramental communion of life and faith inherited from the apostles. This is the nature of St Irenaeus’ comments on the communion of inheritance of the apostles:

‘In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace’" (On the refutation and overthrow of knowledge falsely so-called, 3.24.1).
Irenaeus fundamentally considers those who depart from the communion of the Church those who ‘defraud themselves of life’ (he elsewhere notes that they commit spiritual homicide, and, personally, suicide). This ‘life’ is that of the Spirit, which constitutes for Irenaeus the vivifying force in man; and which in the ecclesial sphere infuses ordinary disciples with the charisms of prophecy, of teaching, of apostleship. Since the Church is that venue of life in the Son through the working of the Spirit, St Irenaeus clearly links Spirit and Church. Where is the Church is, there too—and indeed, by definition—the Spirit; and where the Spirit is, there is the Church. On this latter point Irenaeus has in mind not simply the presence of the Spirit et rien plus (for he is clear throughout both his extant works that the Spirit is everywhere present in creation), but the life-giving relationship of the human creature to the Spirit its animator and vivifier. It is the Spirit rightly known in truth; the Spirit met in authentic knowledge. This he makes clear in another passage of the Refutation and overthrow:

‘The spiritual man shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no “reformation” of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. […] True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place’ (4.33.7, 8).
The Spirit is found in every place one finds the Church, for the Spirit is borne of Christ’s offering, sent by Christ’s promise from the Father, and, as St Irenaeus says here, it is in the Church that one encounters ‘the distinction manifestation of the body of Christ’ that the apostles preserve. Irenaeus’ statement that ‘where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace’ must be understood in this context: that the Spirit is met truly in that community of faith that preserves the encounter with Christ after the teaching of the apostles. Else the Spirit, whilst always present and found everywhere, may be known in ways that lie apart from Christ’s revelation—the kind of ‘spirituality’ Irenaeus himself felt pervaded the ‘Gnostic’ communities of his day.

The idea that the presence of the Spirit is identifiable with the presence of the Church, is an important issue in the perception of Orthodox ecclesiology toward those in other communions of a Christian heritage—a point to which I will return.

Some further considerations must come first. St Cyprian is well-known for his often challenging comments on the nature of Church and the question of salvation outside of it. One of his most famous comments, on the inability of having God as one’s Father if one has not the Church has his mother, must be read its fuller context:

‘Whoever is separated from the Church and joined to an adulteress [e.g. a schismatic group] is separated from the promises of the Church; and he that forsakes the Church of Christ will not attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother’ (On the unity of the Church 6).
St Cyprian’s view of salvation is linked to what he calls ‘the rewards of Christ’. The Church is the haven of life in Christ, Christ the one Saviour; hence, a life apart from the Church is a life St Cyprian sees as rent apart from salvation itself. There can be, in this perception, no salvation apart from salvation, no life in Christ apart from Christ.

Cyprian is more direct in his language relating to the Holy Spirit:

‘Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit. Sound faith moreover cannot exist—not only among heretics, but not even among those who are established in schism’ (On rebaptism 10).
Later fathers (such as Augustine) would directly challenge this language of absolute exclusivity to the presence of the Holy Spirit outside the visible confines of the Church; and perhaps rightly so. Cyprian’s sights are here on the Anabaptists, and he cannot be taken to ‘theologise’ in this passage apart from a practical intention. Yet the theology behind his firm line is of the same genre as his comments in On the unity of the Church. He understands the Church as the place of communion with the true God truly. Apart from this is, at best, the true God falsely; at worst, a false God truly believed.

What are the implications of St Cyprian’s position? If one views the Church in a denominationalising fashion, they pose grave problems. His position in such a scenario would clearly be that his jurisdiction is the only one in which the Spirit resides, and that the Spirit is absent elsewhere. But Cyprian’s context is not one of denominational comportment, but sacramental identity. In the sacramental life of the Church (and one must bear in mind that his strictest words on this matter come in a treatise on errors of sacramental life).

This is not an unproblematic position; but it is hardly uniquely St Cyprian’s. St Augustine, who challenged Cyprian’s declarations of the Spirit’s strict limitation to the sacramental life of the catholic Church, nonetheless would himself write:

‘Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life; but the wrath of God rests upon him’ (Letters 141).
While he may not advocate the strict line that ‘Outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit’, Augustine does locate God’s ‘wrath’ upon those outside the Church—and here not a generic concept of Church, but the ‘Catholic Church’, the Church of the apostles which Augustine sees as the specific community of the inheritance of the apostolic lineage. What is particularly of note is his emphasis on this salvific reality resting in ‘the unity of Christ’ found in and as the Church.

In all these authors, there are a number of common perceptions. Firstly, none suggest the Church can be other than singular, and this is rooted in the oneness of Christ. It is the engagement with Christ in the Eucharist that is the unifying mark of the One Church, preserved in its truth by the unbroken heritage of the apostles.

Secondly, the One Church is taken by all to be the one avenue of human salvation, since it is only in this mystery of communion with the Son that salvation comes. The work of the Spirit, which St Irenaeus describes as in part joining one to the Son, is intrinsically tied to this salvific unity. The Church is the home of salvation, and thus the haven of the Spirit. Departure from the Church is departure from the salvation of Christ, which the Spirit works to bring to life in the human heart.

With the exception of St Cyprian, these statements do not explicitly connect themselves to a denominationalist definition of God’s presence and activity (and even in Cyprian’s case, he is not speaking of ‘denominations’ proper, but of what he considers heretical sects, heretical precisely due to a mutation of sacramental practice and teaching).

Those outside the Church.

The common modern-day question is ‘What of those who are outside the specific canonical limits of the Church’, i.e., of the ‘Catholic Church’ as Augustine calls it, or the Orthodox Church in the context here.

Some food for discussion on this perhaps rests here:

First, it seems inauthentic to the patristic heritage of the Church to attempt an answer to this question that divorces one from, or attempts to redefine, the kind of singularity and definitiveness of the Church as one that is the common testimony of the fathers.

Second, it seems equally inauthentic to the same heritage to attempt to do away with the perception of salvation as resting in the haven of the Church in the same embrace of singularity. There is one salvation, in the one Church.

Fruitful discussion must come in the form of looking at the issue, not of limits to the Church and perceptions of salvation apart from her (which the fathers fairly unanimously claim is not the way of God’s economy), but in the mystery of the encounter with God that is the Church’s very centre and life. To expand a bit on what I wrote before, if the Church is the body of Christ, she has no limits; and yet, as Christ is not a concept of truth, but a person met and encountered and known, inauthentic experience yields a false relationship. Can salvation come ‘outside the Church’? Clearly not, if the above is true.

But does the Christ of the Church, that encountered person, wholly restrict this encounter to those placed in the territorial space of the Church on earth? Here too we must say, clearly not. The Church has recognised saints that were beyond this territory. She acknowledges the ongoing reality of others. The experience of Christ is one that can transfigure a life or lives, which the fractures of sin may have set outside that living organism of the Church’s worldly life.

I do not deny that this position clashes strongly with much modern-day ecclesiology, and I do not claim it is simple to comprehend. But Orthodox ecclesiology is rooted firstly and chiefly in encounter, rather than territorial lines or limits—so the questions of ‘what lies beyond’ take on the same aspects of mystery that all personal relationships do. But, this view is to proclaim the great hope that comes in the witness of God’s grace—the grace of the Church, which is God’s body—working beyond the boundaries of sin and the human attempts to fracture what can never be broken; and at the same time to see that grace and that redemption as the ultimate fruit and evidence that the Church is ever and always one.

INXC, Matthew

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear John,

Andrews quote; "Let us stop going outside our own quest for salvation"


I would take leave to say that for some, such a discussion may be part of that quest. The guidelines of your own Church suggest as much at http://www.scoba.us/resources/docume...r_orthodox.pdf

What you are implying is not accurate John. I'm rather confidently inclined to say that those Scoba Hierarchs would agree with Andrew completely. I suspect they would find how that issue is being pursued here to be rather disturbing at times.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

The guidelines cited are happy to recognise that dialogue such as this may help people come to the Orthodox Church; which part of that is in any way disturbing?

That members of your own Church engage in discussion of such topics with other Christians is something that is undeniable; if any individual wishes not to, that is his or her prerogative, and as has been commented before, there are about four dozen other threads to which one could contribute were that the case.

There is nothing disturbing in what Matthew Steenberg writes when he comments that
Cyprian’s context is not one of denominational comportment, but sacramental identity.
At no point has it been suggested that there is more than one Church; the whiff of herring is unmistakable.

That there are several denominations which would identify themselves exclusively as the 'Church' of the Fathers, and would, in the process eschew the description of 'denomination' which they would apply to the others, is simply to state that Orthodox ecclesiology is claimed in more than one place - although, on the Tertullian model previously mentioned, there are ways of exploring why this might be so. To deny that it might be so is, of course, quite understandable; all solipsisms define themselves so and resent the suggestion that they are solipsistic. But here we get back into a linguistic approach which, as I suggested in my very first post, is not altogether helpful; like arrogating to oneself the definition of 'authentic', it closes down discussion as one assumes a self-appointed moral high ground; it was that I hoped we could avoid.

If one examines Matthew's quotations, and my own, we see that there are boundaries to the one undivided Church, and they concern heretical belief and a want of Apostolicity; where those things are wanting, there we begin to trace some of the boundaries. That some of your own Church could state, along with some from mine, that
It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion should not be dismissed as inconsistent with your ecclesiology, since +Kallistos and others of your persuasion have found it acceptable.

My own intentions in starting and participating in this thread were not to either challenge Orthodox ecclesiology, why would I, since it is the ecclesiology of my own Church and is, as Matthew writes
rooted firstly and chiefly in encounter. If it is being claimed that that encounter is possible only in Churches affiliated to ROCOR, that is a claim one respects and understands, even as one smiles and offers a prayer to the Holy, undivided and adorable Trinity.


One is still left with the mystery of the Infinity of God's love and the paradox of our thinking it is restricted to what to God may seem one among many denominations. One is still left with a definition of boundaries that match rather closely those of earthly empires, and a lingering suspicion of the influence of cultural hegemony. Tertullian directed us towards Orthodox belief and Apostolic succession as the marks of 'the Church'; an Orthodox ecclesiology that is accepted by many, but appropriated by each as wholly their own, is an interesting phenomenon.

In Christ,

John

[Celinda Grace]

There cannot be ‘another Church’, much less a multiplicity of churches, when the very term Church is perceived as the concrete eucharistic participation in the one Christ, through the apostolically preserved ascesis of the mysteries and ways of Christ’s person.

INXC, Matthew


Mr. Steenberg,

I have noticed in several of your posts that your use of the word ascetic, aceticism and ascesis does not correspond to my normal perception of this word. Especially in this quote I can tell that I have no idea what you are referring to when you say the "ascesis of the mysteries"

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Celinda,


I have noticed in several of your posts that your use of the word ascetic, aceticism and ascesis does not correspond to my normal perception of this word. Especially in this quote I can tell that I have no idea what you are referring to when you say the "ascesis of the mysteries"

Fundamentally, ascesis relates to practice, and particularly to practice as it instructs a life of preparation for divine communion. Christianity is fundamentally ascetical, inasmuch as it is not principally a construct of beliefs but a way of life - Christ's way of life - into which one is drawn and which leads towards the transfiguration of salvation.

Ascesis is too often taken as simply a category of practical rigour, relating perhaps to the keeping of lengthy vigils, fasting, or acts of penance. Surely these all are, or at least can be, ascetical tools. But asceticism is more fundamentally the practice of a conversion of life, in all its aspects.

As such, all aspects of a rightly-lived Christianity are intrinsically ascetical in character. This includes, for example, the celebration of the mysteries (sacraments) of the Church, which, kept in a certain way, provide the full potential for encounter and transfiguration. The sacraments are themselves ascetical realities, and the Church confesses the importance of an ascetical approach to them (as per the prayer before communion, 'Behold this is a fire that illumines the godly, but which burns the ungodly...').

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

An excellent explanation - which, like your ecclesiology seems to be held by others; at least I am sure that no Oriental Orthodox would argue with it. Which continues to raise questions about Apostolicity and Catholicity. The Fathers you cite are recognised as such by many, not just a few. I still suspect that an interrogation of Tertullian's meaning might help us - but perhaps not?

I remain impressed by an Orthodox ecclesiology that is accepted by many, but appropriated by some as wholly their own. I was struck, in this respect, by a comment in a paper on lingustic hegemonic discourse I came across recently:

... we are witnessing a crisis of critique and a closure of language meanings.....As such it signals the cessation of questioning and the suffocation of critique. This general failure to question is a direct by product of the ideology, which has managed to produce such a powerful myth about itself that it does not need to be interrogated.


In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

Back when I was raising my own children, the concept of boundaries was very important. When my children were small, I set very strict boundaries. As they grew, those boundaries expanded, until such time as the boundaries were crossed, then they became much more "defined".

I see similar analogies to the Church. Boundaries often are defined in disciplinary terms, not as "punishment" but to be instructive. We sometimes need "safe" boundaries, and this is certainly what the bishops are often concerned with. The reason we seem to disagree with where the boundaries are is because perhaps the boundaries are set at different places for ourselves. We need to be careful with this however. When my children were teenagers, they drew very different boundaries than I did for them. This was cause for much discussion and redrawing from time to time, based on the circumstances at the time.

But there are boundaries, and I do believe that the example of the Eucharist, for me, is the most helpful. The cup is indeed a visible symbol of unity. Sometimes even Orthodox Christians can put themselves "outside" the Church if their actions require "excommunication" or denial of the Divine Mysteries for a time until their actions are repented and changed.

This plays out to some extent in the great divisions of the Church. If Christ is present in the Eucharist of other Churches, that is between them and God. But if my bishop, as a matter of good discipline, says I am not to partake of communion in other Churches, then that is MY boundary, and is not a judgement on those other churches, simply a matter of obedience.

In dealing with non-Orthodox Christians, my typical response is simply to ask: "So, how is that working for you?" If it is "working" for them, then there is not much for me to say to them. But if it is not working for them, then it is incumbent on me to be ready to defend the hope that is in me to them. Then it is up to God to provide what is lacking in my testimony at that point.

I know my boundaries. I leave you to yours, only stopping to ask: "How is that working for you?"

Side note, I am on the road right now and access is spotty. If you repond to me directly, I might not be able to get back to you right away.

From the road,
Herman

[Father David Moser]

Fundamentally, ascesis relates to practice, and particularly to practice as it instructs a life...
asceticism is more fundamentally the practice of a conversion of life, in all its aspects.


To bring the idea of "struggle" back into the definition of asceticism may I kind of tag onto Matthew's comments that asceticism is the practice of denying oneself, taking up the cross and following Christ. Sometimes that is rigorous fasting and vigil and other traditionally "ascetic" practices, other times it is simply living the life of Christ day to day (rather than my own life).

Fr David Moser

[M.C. Steenberg]

An excellent explanation - which, like your ecclesiology seems to be held by others; at least I am sure that no Oriental Orthodox would argue with it. Which continues to raise questions about Apostolicity and Catholicity.

Commenting on this reading, it makes sense to note that the ecclesiology I have attempted to describe cannot with any coherence be held by multiple groups, unless those groups hold that the others subscribing to it do so from a deficient stance. In other words, this ecclesiology loses its own integrity if one attempts to claim it for one's self, and at the same time recognise another group as holding it rightly; for it does not admit of an 'other' in an ecclesiological concept.

This places Christian groups in one of two positions. Either such an ecclesiology is embraced, fully for the whole of its identity, in which case other groups are seen as in some sense deficient of this ecclesiological standard; or it is embraced partially, claiming at the same time that others might also hold it. But this latter can only be a partial adherence to such an ecclesiology, for it modies the understanding of 'Church' precisely in making this distinction.

To put this rather more bluntly, it is not possible to subscribe to this ecclesiology and claim that other groups are 'also Church'. Multiple groups may indeed lay claim to this ecclesiology; but they only do so authentically if they apply it with that singularity.

The ecumenical testimony of this vision of Church lies not in attempting to see the Church in many bodies, found as many approximations of degree, but in seeing the asetical, personal encounter at the heart of the Church's true experience as pervading across the divisions occasioned by human sin, speaking the heart of the Church's truth in the fractures and brokenness of human division.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

Indeed and of course, and my understanding is that my own communion would take this view:

in which case other groups are seen as in some sense deficient of this ecclesiological standard
which is why it takes the line that it does not require baptism from those from an EO background, but would require Chrismation; I am given to understand that the same is true in the case of some EO in relation to those from the OO - though not of ROCOR (and others?); not being EO I do not know why there would be this difference, or what, if anything, it might signify.

It was because I understood this to be the ecclesiological position that I saw relatively little profit in pursuing the discussion along ecclesiological lines; that must end up in one of the two places you describe.

It was this aspect
in seeing the asetical, personal encounter at the heart of the Church's true experience as pervading across the divisions occasioned by human sin, speaking the heart of the Church's truth in the fractures and brokenness of human division which I had thought to pursue, and which I would be more than happy to continue to explore if there is an appetite for it.

In Christ,


John

[Tim Grass]

In case we're all getting too hypothetical, here's something solid:

Concerning the Dialogue Between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches

A Memorandum of the Sacred Community of Mount Athos

The article of the co-president of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian Churches, the Most Reverend Damascene, Bishop of Switzerland, which was entitled "The Theological Dialogue of the Orthodox Churches and the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Thoughts and Perspectives" [Episkepsis #516 / March 31, 1995] gave impetus to more disquiet on the part of the Holy Mountain regarding the development of this Theological Dialogue.

It is well known that a hurried union is being forced upon the Orthodox and the Non-Chalcedonians in spite of the yet existing dogmatic differences and of unsettled ecclesiological problems, such as, for example, the unconditional acceptance of the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and of their sacredness and universality by the Non-Chalcedonians.

The Administrative Council of the Sacred Community, in its report concerning the Dialogue of Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians, dated February 1, 1994, expresses its reservations about the course taken by this theological dialogue; in short, it is not guiding to a union in the Truth, one acceptable from the orthodox viewpoint. Such reservations have also been expressed by eminent professors of the Theological Schools and by other churchmen in special studies on this specific issue.

On such important matters, wide discussion is mandated within the fold of the church body, for its information, so that the consciousness of the Church may function freely, without hindrance.

Such a discussion, however, is described by the Bishop of Switzerland in his aforementioned article as "criticism expressed by certain religious circles to arouse doubts over issues which are completely covered by the theology expressed in the two 'Joint Statements'" [p. 15]. From this description it appears that His Grace understands the theological Dialogue as a subject only for certain theologians, experts of dogmatics, who are quite indifferent to the disquiet of the pious. If indeed the people of God is upset by the theology of the Joint Declarations, is it not obligatory that a synodical decision by the Church be made about their orthodoxy? And such a decision should be made in a very short time, lest the disquieting development of this theological dialogue based on a possibly false theology proceed further.

Having become aware of such a danger, i.e., union with the Non-Chalcedonians founded upon un-Orthodox presuppositions, we are in constant unease and sacred indignation. The Faith is in danger, and we cannot trifle with things which cannot be trifled with. We are aware of our responsibility for the protection and preservation without innovations of the doctrine and ecclesiology of the holy Church as we have received them from the holy Fathers.

Therefore we denounce the Joint Commission of this Dialogue for all the aberrations which we have noted hereafter and verified to:

-His All-holiness Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch and his holy and sacred Synod.

-The Most Blessed Primates of the ancient and other Patriarchates and the holy and sacred Synods of their hierarchs.

-The Most Blessed Primates of the Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches and their holy and sacred synods of hierarchs.

-All the sacred Orthodox clergy and pious people in all the world.

Doing this, we confess that we are only moved by a feeling of
responsibility.

+ + +
I) For the bringing into question by the Joint Commission of the continual consciousness of our Church that it constitutes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, when the Commission accepted the statement: "Both families have always preserved faithfully the same authentic Orthodox Christological Faith and the uninterrupted continuity of the apostolic tradition." [II Joint Statement, paragraph 9]

II) For the attack upon the validity and authority of the Holy Ecumenical Councils by the decision of the Joint Commission that the Anti-Chalcedon heresiarchs Dioscorus, Jacob, Severus, etc. be considered not heretical but Orthodox in their thinking. The consciousness of the Orthodox Church recognizes that infallibility and authority in the Holy Spirit is in the Ecumenical Councils and refuses to accept the possibility of revising the decisions of an Ecumenical Council by another Ecumenical Council without the latter Council being considered as an heretical conventicle, such as the Latrocinium of Ephesus.

III) For the decision of the Joint Commission concerning the possibility of lifting an anathema placed by an Ecumenical Council. This is an unacceptable decision, alien to the sound mind of the Church, which offends the fundamental consciousness of the Church concerning the authority of the Ecumenical Councils.

IV) For the radical disagreement of the Joint Commission with the teachings of the Holy Fathers as regards the Christology of the Non-Chalcedonians. The Fathers (Maximus the Confessor, Sophronius of Jerusalem, Anastasius of Sinai, John Damascene, Photius the Great, Theodore the Studite, Theodosius the Cenobiarch, etc.) term their Christology heretical, but the Joint Commission considers it to be Orthodox and a continuation of the ancient apostolic Faith of the Church.

V) For the acceptance by the Joint Commission that the contemporary Non-Chalcedonians believe the same Christology as we do. However, this is not apparent in the Joint Statement (1989, 1990) in which there are many expressions susceptible to a monophysitic interpretation similar to the teaching of Severus, "The one unified theanthropic nature" [I Joint Statement] and "the natures are distinguished only in thought" [II Joint (Common) Declaration]. It was requested that the Non- Chalcedonians elucidate these terms in order to dispel any uncertainty so that we could be certain they understood them in an Orthodox sense. Unfortunately no answer was given.

VI) For the limiting by the Joint Commission of requiring only the condemnation of the extreme Monophysitism of Eutyches by the Non-Chalcedonians. According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the conscience of the worshipping Church, even the moderate Monophysitism of Dioscorus and Severus is a heresy. The comparison of certain formulations in the Joint Statements with corresponding expressions of contemporary Non-Chalcedonian Patriarchs and theologians proves their adherence to moderate Monophysitism.

VII) For the misleading declaration of the Bishop of Switzerland that the Non-Chalcedonians accept the teachings of our ecumenical Councils [Episkepsis #5 / 16, March 31, 1995, p. 13] in spite of their refusal to accept the Orthodox interpretation of the Definitions of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils as their own interpretation also. We will give word for word the text of the Joint Statement which supposedly supports their acceptance of the teachings of these Ecumenical Councils. "As for the four succeeding Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox declare that for them, the above points one through seven are also the teachings of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while at the same time the Oriental Orthodox consider this declaration of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this mutual understanding, the Orientals responded to it positively." We ask: Can it be concluded from this declaration that the Non-Chalcedonians accept without reservation the teachings of our Ecumenical Councils?

VIII) For the novel theory of the Join Commission that "the formal proclamation of their ecumenicity [i.e., of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils by the Non- Chalcedonians] was considered generally that it would be a natural consequence of the restoration of full communion or that it could be evaluated in the future." [Episkepsis #516 / March 31, 1995, p. 15]. In other words, the union will take place without their recognizing the Ecumenical Councils; but after the union they probably will be accepted or the matter will be put up for their evaluation. We ask: Which Orthodox bishop, who gave an oath to defend the Ecumenical and Local
Councils, will accept intercommunion with bishops who will discuss if the Ecumenical Councils are Ecumenical?

The doubtfulness of their acceptance by the Non-Chalcedonians is proved in the declaration of the Coptic Patriarch Shenouda III before the Inter-Orthodox Commission in Chambesy: "As for the Ecumenical Councils, we accept the first three ... . . We reject the Council of Chalcedon... . I can say very frankly that all the Oriental cannot accept the Council of Chalcedon. . . . You have Seven Ecumenical Councils. If you should lose one, it should be no great loss to you" [from Metropolitan Chrysostom (Constantinides) of Myra, Dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the Ancient Oriental Churches, in the periodical Theologia, Athens 1980, Vol. 51, Issue 1, page 229-230].

IX) For the tendency of concealing events and giving misleading information to the body of the Church by the Joint Commission-actions extremely provocative to church sensibilities-as proved in the following:

A) The Minutes of the official meetings of the Joint Commission for Dialogue have yet to be published so that the hierarchy of the Church, the sacred clergy and the pious people be informed and aware.

B) By orders of the local Churches, the Joint Commission assembled in its Fourth Meeting, and on the ground of what was accepted and agreed upon in the Joint Statements, it reached the decision of the possibility for lifting the anathemas. [Announcement of the Fourth Meeting, Episkepsis 498, November 30, 1993, p. 4, 6]. We ask: Which local Synod gave such an order or on the grounds of which Synodical decisions did the Primates of the Churches approve the texts of the Joint Statements and bless the decision concerning the lifting of the anathemas, based upon the theology of the Joint Statements as though upon a firm Orthodox foundation? Let such decisions of the Sacred Synods be published. Otherwise it will be understood that the
Joint Commission proceeds to take successive decisions without first securing Synodical approval for its prior enactments and decisions.

C) The Most Reverend Bishop of Switzerland affirms: "all the above mentioned local Orthodox and Oriental churches welcomed with enthusiasm not only the positive results of the Theological Dialogue but also the prospect for restoration of ecclesiastical communion after a separation of fifteen centuries; they described the complete agreement on Christological doctrine as an historical event. . ." [Episkepsis #516 / March 31, 1955, p. 14]. This affirmation is in resounding contradiction to concrete actions by the churches which testify the opposite. Specifically we refer to:

1) The February 2, 1994 recommendation to the Sacred Synod of the Synodical Committee on Dogmatic and Canonical Issues of the Church of Greece, in which "The Committee proposes that the Church of Greece not hasten to accept these 'Statements' and considers the following as essential dogmatic conditions for the union of the Non-Chalcedonians with the Orthodox Catholic Church:

a) The acceptance by the Non-Chalcedonians of the Defini- nition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council...

b) the recognition of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils as being Ecumenical as well as their dogmatic definitions without interpretive statements...

c) the discouragement of "concelebrations" or other "manifestations (demonstrations) of common (joint) worship"...

If these conditions are not met, the Non-Chalcedonians ... . remain ... heterodox [Ecclesia, January 1-15, 1995, issue 1, p. 31]

2) the December, 1994 submitted report of the Synodical Theological committee of the Church of Russia to the Sacred Synod of that Church's hierarchy, in which "The Synod of of Hierarchs ... decided the following:

1) to approve the report of the Synodical Theological committee;

2) to assess that the "Second Joint Statement and its proposals to the Churches" cannot be considered a final text...

3) the Synodical Theological Committee should undertake a further study of the records of former meetings of the theologians of both sides... After this, the Orthodox Church of Russia will inform the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue of its opinion...

4) having in mind the necessity for the participation of the people of God in this matter of firmly establishing the union, which people, according to the words of the Encyclical of the Patriarchs of the East, "is the guardian of ancient piety", the Synod considers the time appropriate for the organization of a discussion by the whole Church upon this specific issue" [Episkepsis, 516, March 31, 1995, p. 16].

Has there not been a scandalous deception in the information given to the people of God?

D) Bishops of Orthodox Churches have declared to us that they had never been informed about events in this theological dialogue and that they will never accept a union unless the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Ecumenical Councils.

We ask: Can such an omission of informing the Bishops of the Church who have a direct concern be justified, especially since conciliar approval is an indispensable condition when dealing with such serious issues?

X) For the decision of the Sacred Synod of the Church of Romania as being alien to the mind of the Church, because this decision:

A) considers that the anathemas were laid upon the heretics by the Ecumenical Councils in a spirit lacking love, while today, since love now exists, union can be accomplished. Such a way of thinking directs a profound blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, through Whose inspiration these decisions were made, and against the sacred memory of the Holy Fathers, whom the Church calls God-bearers, Mouths of the Word, Harps of the Spirit, etc.

B) proposes the substitution of the authority of an Ecumenical Council by the unanimity of the local Sacred Synods-a new first in the history of the Church.

C) approves the organizing of programs which will disseminate amidst the people the decisions of the Joint Commission without there having previously been a unanimous, pan-orthodox decision. These present conditions are certainly grievous and harmful for the pious Romanian people.

For this reason, our hearts are filled with unspeakable sorrow for the Church of Romania.

XI) For the extremely disturbing decision of the Joint Commission to purge the liturgical books of texts which refer to the Non-Chalcedonians as heretical. The sacred services of many holy confessors of the Faith, of many righteous Fathers, and especially the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Council in Chalcedon will be mutilated. The Synodicon of Orthodoxy will practically be silenced. The Synaxaria (Lives) of many Saints will cease to be read by the people of God.

We ask: Are all the texts referred to above simply ornamental elements in Orthodox hymnology so that they can be painlessly and harmlessly removed, or are they basic elements of Orthodoxy, whose removal will cause the eradication of what we understand as Orthodoxy?

As far as we are concerned, it would be an unacceptable innovation with consequences for the very identity of the Orthodox Church.

+ + +
All of the above, by denouncing them to the Venerable Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Venerable Hierarchies of the Orthodox Churches, the sacred clergy, and the pious people, we seek the swiftest possible reestablishment of the Theological Dialogue upon the right principles, so that the Orthodox will preserve for themselves the Orthodox Faith unspoiled but also for the Non-Chalcedonians, so that they will have the possibility of return to the true Church of Christ, from which they have been cut off for fifteen centuries.

We believe that with the Grace of Christ, the unremitting endeavors of all the members of the Church will bring positive results.

In the event, however, that the union will come about outside of the only Truth-God forbid-we declare expressly and categorically that the Holy Mountain will not accept such a false union.

[Tim Grass]

Ooops…….. this is the one I meant to post before. It talks about some of the terms that have been talked about in this thread. I’ll put those in bold.


Commentary on the Latest Recommendations of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox and Oriental Churches The third meeting of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the oriental Orthodox or Monophysite Churches [1] took place at the Ecumenical Patriarchate Center, Chambesy (Geneva) Switzerland from 23 to 28 September 1990. The Commission met under the chairmanship of Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland. The thirty-four members of the Commission came from Churches in Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, U.S.A., Lebanon, Poland, Switzerland, Syria, the United Kingdom, the U.S.S.R. (Russian, Georgian, and Armenian Churches), and Yugoslavia.


The purpose of the Commission, as emphasized in Metropolitan Damaskinos' opening address, is to restore full ecclesiastical communion between the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite [2] Churches of Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, and Malabar (India). This is now regarded as possible by the members of the Commission as a result of the agreements reached on the Christological teaching of the two Churches summarized in the first "Joint Declaration" of the Joint Theological Commission (Anba Bishoy Monastery 1989). The causes for the original rupture between the Orthodox and Monophysites is seen by the Commission as "indissolubly" linked to "a theological disagreement relative to the understanding and interpretation" of the dogmatic definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451). The Commission came to the conclusion that this disagreement no longer exists, that in fact the Orthodox and Monophysites are in "total accord on the essential points of the faith". Therefore, the Second Joint Declaration sees no further theological obstacles to union of Orthodox and Monophysites and addresses itself to the practical measures necessary to effect this union. The Second Joint Declaration is a brief document which we quote in full (text in italics) below. It is one of a now familiar genre of "Joint Statements" familiar to anyone who has followed the ecumenical movement over the past thirty years. All of these joint statements share one important feature-emphasize what the parties have in common and ignore or dismiss as irrelevant differences both small and great, not even hesitating to distort or pervert the truth. The present Joint Statement fits well into this mode.
The Second Joint Declaration and recommendations to the Churches The first joint declaration on Christology adopted by the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the oriental Orthodox Churches at the time of our historic meeting at Anba Bishoy monastery in Egypt from 20 to 24 June 1989, constitutes the basis for this second joint declaration on the following affirmation of our common faith and its interpretation, and the recommendations in regard to measures to be taken for communion of our two Churches in Jesus Christ our Saviour, Who prayed "that all be one".

1.) The two families are agreed in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both confess that the Logos, the second Person of the Holy Trinity, alone was born of the Father before all ages and is consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born of the Virgin Mary the "Theotokos"; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with a soul, a body and an intelligence; He was crucified, died, was buried and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the heavenly Father where He is seated at the right hand of the same Father as Lord of all creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit, He showed the Church to be His Body. We await His second coming in the fulness of His glory.

The Joint Commission has chosen to call the Orthodox Church and the Monophysite Churches "two families". This must be an immediate warning to all who are concerned for the genuine Orthodox faith-the "right belief." This emotive phrase with all its subliminal implications is not only deceptive but absolutely inadmissible. No member of the Commission, consisting of some of the best known "theologians" of the day, can be unfamiliar with the "Branch theory" so decisively discredited in the last century especially by the Russian theologian, Alexei Khomiakov. Is there anyone today who does not pay lip-service to his famous dictum-"The Church is One"? That Anglicans, Roman Catholics, etc. are not simply other "branches" of the same tree and that the Church even reduced to a tiny remnant would still be "One" no matter how many schismatics and heretics went their own way, is a doctrine which was clearly reestablished in the last century. The Church is One because it is the Body of Christ- and Christ is One and cannot be divided. This should be, after all, easily understood by the Monophysites for it was over this very principle-the unity of Christ's Person-that they broke communion with the rest of the Church. And yet now they can speak of two families -two branches, two Bodies of Christ! No, this is not possible. There is one "family" only and those separated from the one family are the prodigals and-like the Prodigal Son-must return to the one family.

From Orthodox Life, vol. 42, no. 3 (May-June 1991), pp. 5-18.


That's just a little bit of a really long text, that talks a lot about Chalcedon..... but that's not really the point here, so I've just snipped this section.

--tim

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,

I am a little puzzled as to the purpose of your last posting, since this thread is not concerned with 'unity, and until your post I don't think anyone had mentioned the topic. Indeed, if you look back to the very first post, it started from an acknowledgement of differing positions within your communion; you have chosen to highlight the nature of that dispute; it is not for those outside your family to comment, simply to note, as the first post here did, that there is more than one view on these things.

This is a conversation about finding a language in which we can discuss and explore the nature, boundaries and limits of the Church. There is nothing here to do with 'unity'. The purpose of mentioning those talks was simply to show that some within your own family have found a language in which discussions can be carried on. Despite the fears expressed in the Athonite proclamation, there has been, and is, no rush to unity.

Those who have no wish to explore the dimensions of what Matthew Steenberg is commenting on when he writes about
seeing the ascetical, personal encounter at the heart of the Church's true experience as pervading across the divisions occasioned by human sin, speaking the heart of the Church's truth in the fractures and brokenness of human division. have many places here they can post on topics they prefer.

As, I hope, the very first post here made clear, there are no hidden agendas at work here - it is about what it says on the thread lid, so to speak. Some have found useful ways of discussing the subjects under review, and there has been, I suspect, an increase in our understanding of the position of the other. That, I think, is all that we are doing; those who dislike it are welcome to say so; those who find it useful will continue to add to it.

In Christ,

John

[Nina]

Celinda,

Thank you for the above post.

None of us are Church fathers ( or mothers! ) here, but we are all learning from eachother. :)


Dear Celinda,

I agree with Antonios that here you will not find Church Fathers, or Mothers (maybe yes and they are hidden from our eyes/at least not yet/they are in the making). But certainly you may find Godfathers and Godmothers! :) (I am joking, but there is a bit of truth in it).

Seriously, from what I read that you post, you know so much! Also in life you may be more Orthodox than I am (in praxis), since at the moment I classify myself in the category of... how did a Protestant book's title -that amused me soooo much- characterize them?... ... ah, the 'Bad girls of the Bible'. :) I did not read the book, but the title has become a recurring theme for teasing (and truth in my case) between my friends. I just pray and hope that God will have mercy on my soul! So since the knowledge about the Christ's Body is acquired through holiness in action, I can not claim I know an iota. However, you, please keep seeking and searching and praying to God to lead you, because from what I see, you like reading (and quoting here) the Fathers: and they never fail anyone! :)

Love,
Nina

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,

A last thought on the 'unity' issue which your last two posts raised. Oddly enough it is another subject upon which there is complete agreement between Christians. The following two quotations, although not as robustly phrased as the Athonite declarations, make the same point.


THE PRINCIPALS OF CHRISTIAN UNITY
Unity is full communion. The search for full communion means the common search for full agreement in faith. Sacramental communion can take place only after identification in the faith has been ascertained.
Unity is not to be understood in the outdated ecclesiology of return to the Catholic Church, since each local church manifests all the fullness of the Church of God. They are all Sister Churches identically, and their agreement is necessary for the unity of the Church. Therefore, there is no need for the insistence on communion with one particular See or bishop as absolutely essential and uniquely indispensable.
Unity is not to be understood as a submission of one Church to the other. It is a communion of love in conciliarity on equal terms.
Unity is neither absorption nor fusion but a meeting in truth and love.
Therefore, the missionary activity that has been called “uniatism” cannot be accepted either as a method to be followed or as a model for the unity that is being sought.
UNITY IN FAITH
The Church as a community of believers and faithful should have unity in faith: “One Lord, one faith” (Ephesians 4:5). They have to abide by the genuine deposit of the Apostolic faith handed down in the Church and profess it without alteration or addition.

And this:

“Now Church unity is of course no political problem which can be solved through compromise, by judging what might find acceptance and what can be solved through compromise, by judging what might find acceptance and what is just tolerable. Here unity in faith is at stake, that is to say the question of truth, which must not become the object of political bargaining. So long and in so far as there is the obligation to regard any maximum solution in terms of a claim to truth itself, so long and in so far as there is no other way, but to simply strive for conversion of the respective partner.
Conversely it must be said: The claim to truth must not be raised where it has no imperative and unshakable authority. It must not be imposed as truth what in reality is a historical grown form, more or less closely connected with truth.”


So, as well as the same search for the ascetic life in Christ, and an ecclesiology which draws the same conclusions, we seem to have in common a rather similar attitude to the question you raised - which is why the Athonite Monks can rest assured that there will be no rush to unity - it really is the reddest of herrings.

Oh, the source of the quotations?
The first is from HH Pope Shenouda III, Patriarch of Alexandria; the second from the theologian, Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

So, no need to worry about false ecumenism - not here, anyway. The implications of the paradox that we have in common the principles that divide us may, of course, be part of our discussion here; but I would reemphasise that it is a discussion, designed only so that we can gain a better understanding of each sees the other. Only those with the western linear view of progress need fear the cloven hoof of false ecumenism; no one here said anything about a better understanding leading to anything except a better understanding. His will is what will prevail - and that too we hold in common.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

I must confess that I am not greatly interested in looking in detail at interdenominational perceptions, at how differing groups see one another, at least in this forum. This falls rather squarely in that realm of inter-church dialogue that our own scope does not permit, not least because it is an important enough topic to be explored well in its own environment.

So, setting that matter to one side, I would be interested in more discussion on the ascetical, sacramental nature of Orthodox ecclesiology.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

(I am taking as somewhat of a backdrop to these remarks my previous comments in post #109 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45123&postcount=109), on the nature of Church; post #120 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45143&postcount=120), on the singularity of Church and the means of salvation; and to some degree also my response to Ms Grace in post #124 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=45165&postcount=124), on the definition of ‘asceticism’ and its relation to Christian life.)


Locating the Church.

The fundamental centre of the Church is the chalice. It is precisely this grounding in the mystery of human-divine communion that at once makes the Church indissolubly one (as there is but one Christ, and therefore one cup), but which makes it also universal and beyond any territorial location. St Ignatius’ famous ‘Where the bishop is, there is the Church’, is fundamentally a sacramental proclamation, as the bishop is the chief celebrant of the Eucharist. The Church, in her absolute unity, is present, full and whole in each location and time where the mystery of the Eucharist is celebrated.

Or rather, she is ‘whole’ at the chalice only inasmuch as at the chalice she is brought into the koinonia, the fellowship of communion, with the whole of her body. The Church is ‘complete’ at the chalice because in the mystery of the Eucharist she is brought into communion with the entire communion of the Body of Christ. In that mystery the small village parish is no longer only a small village parish, but an inseparable portion of the Church entière. At that moment, the bishop (or priest) celebrates in concert and in communion with all bishops, and the whole of the Church unites in concord around the altar. Each ‘independent’ celebration of the Eucharist is the fullness of the Church, but only because in the mystery of communion, there is no ‘independent’ celebration.

The Church’s extent is thus the extent of sacramental encounter with God. In some direct sense, the whole created order is the foundation of this ecclesial haven, wrought of God for this very purpose. ‘All creation’, it is said, ‘sings thy praises’, and is in this way a temple ‘not made with hands’ for engagement with the creator.

The Church, however, is that unique haven of identity in Christ, established by him, that brings the intention of the whole created order into a unique degree of encounter with God—which makes its members into those ‘in the world, not of it’. As St Maximos was to put it, this unique ecclesial establishment of communion with God, makes man a priest back to the creation that at first fostered his own conversion.

So the Church’s extent is in a real way universal, given that the whole of the universe (or the ‘cosmos’, as the Church’s writings normally have it) has been created expressly for that purpose which defines the Church: the living encounter with God. And yet, as the Church has been entrusted with the unique gift of encounter in the mystery of divine communion, that which makes her unique in the world and apart from it—and, paradoxically, by being apart, allows her to sanctify and redeem the world—is the preservation of life in and at the chalice. In this mystery she is at once universal and singular: open to all, and yet divisible or partitionable by none. Her universality is intrinsically local, since one experiences the fullness of this mystery at this chalice, here, wherever ‘this’ and ‘here’ may be; and yet her locality is that of the whole Church. There can be no ‘other’ in a mystery of identification in the one cosmic Christ.

Defining the Church.

The identity of the Church with the sacramental life grounds the nature of ‘Church’ in divine communion. Who the Church is, is that body of God’s creation joined to himself; what the Church does, is bring the creature more fully into that communion, as the grace of God provides.

This means that the Church is, by definition, ascetical. Here ascesis cannot be understood in a limited sense as a collection of acts or behaviours (e.g. fasts, vigils, prayer rules), but as the whole of life—and the whole approach to life—orientated around preparation for participation in God. The basic idea behind the term, ascesis, is preparatory. It was, in ancient times, a sporting term used to describe the conditioning underwent before a contest, to see one fit and ready for the event. In the Christian life it is much the same. An ascetical life(asketikos bios) is a life lived in a continual state of conditioning toward authentic divine communion, and away from all that hinders it. It is the ongoing conversion of life from a habitude of sin (fundamentally, broken union) to one of obedience and participation.

This rebellious context of sin makes ascesis often a battle and a struggle. Habits are hard-worn and impressed deeply in human lives; and while asceticism is sometimes profoundly peaceful (keeping in mind that the practice of hesychia, or interior quietude, is itself a kind of asceticism), at other times it is painful and active. But precisely in this, asceticism is Christian. One does not simply battle against a fallen self to no end, but to condition one’s own life to a life in Christ. Seen from this perspective, asceticism is the clothing of humanity in Christ’s life—a life of sacrifice, of obedience, of humility, of truth.

If the Church is fundamentally about the life in Christ that as at the centre of Eucharistic communion, then the Church is intrinsically ascetic. The aim of the Church’s mission is the conditioning of mankind for salvation. Her structures and shape exist to achieve this end. Her services are centred around it; her scriptures proclaim it; her fathers and mothers experience and reveal it; her canons guide it. This latter point is not often enough understood. The canons of the Church are intrinsically and exclusively ascetical, inasmuch as they exist as guides to an authentic life borne up in God.

[Rick H.]

Dear All,

I have only time for a short post this morning, but I cannot leave without taking a moment to express my utter gratitude for the most recent postings of both John and Matthew in this thread. We are so blessed to have men of this caliber devoting their time, energy, and gifts for the benefit of us all. Through John's diverse contributions from even the field of linguistics[!] the other day, and especially Matthew, who is the first to really tackle the question 'Who is the Church?' in his last post in a very direct manner . . . there is no doubt in my mind that Monachos.net is berachah! (a place of blessing), and this *is* a very good work that is going on here. May we offer prayers today for these two men, and each other, as we continue moving forward one-step-at-a-time.

Shalom-Shalom.

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

There is nary a word in your edifying post with which I disagree - and not one that I could have put nearly as well. It stands as a justification of this thread - and, were one ever needed, of this site.

It is the product of what it describes, and as such requires prayer and thoughtfulness; it also offers us a rich agenda for further discussion - if we are bold enough to seize the opportunities you offer. I know how much praise causes you discomfort, but if you will produce something of this quality, there is no alternative other than to note it - and to thank you; except, of course, to try to accept the opportunities it offers to continue our exploration of the themes along the lines so well set out.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

An Ascetical Consensus and Trajectory?


Dear All,

I would like to ask a question that I do not know the answer to:

Through a consideration limited to the History of Christian Thought, and the History of the Church, have there been different schools of thought, and in this sense a theological elasticity, found *within* Eastern Orthodoxy as it relates to the limits and boundaries of the Church?

In an earlier post, I asked this question, and included the present day in the inquiry as a way to, hopefully, generate discussion on this aspect. However, for anyone who can read or will take the time to sit with our leaders today, it is very obvious that yes, there are clearly different schools of thought to be found on this matter *within* Eastern Orthodoxy today--this is a no-brainer. There is without a doubt a theological elasticity in this area today.

But, I honestly do not know what the answer to this question is, as it relates to the past. I am reading and researching at the present, as I have been for a few years now, but this is a 'tough-row-to-hoe' when done on an independent study basis, for one who has not specialized in this area.

As far as I am concerned, Matthew has answered my long standing question here on Monachos.net (Who is the Church?) very well, and very masterfully. In even just this one clause, under the first level subheading, "Defining the Church," Matthew has said, "Who the Church is, is that body of God’s creation joined to himself;" I feel that this is a thing of beauty to behold.

And, from here, I would like to, hopefully, not become the catalyst for the bar room doors to swing open again and for another free for all to ensue. But, just the opposite. God willing, I would like to find out from those who have spent more time than I understanding "the big picture," as it relates to our topic. In another attempt to be clear here, I do not have the background necessary to see a either a consensus or a trajectory as it relates to my one question above. So, I am asking for help, and a dialogue, from those who are more informed than I on this matter. I am continuing to read and research, and I think I am seeing an answer come into view, but this forum is for open and friendly discussion, and for questions just like this, I think. So, I am hoping for some assistance here.

On a side note, I will also share that I had no idea what a "hot button" this issue was for some *within* Eastern Orthodoxy. I was very naive about this. This development was, frankly, somewhat of a surprise or a shock. While, as I have shared with another here, 'sometimes' I think I can do theology in my sleep, there are times at night, I am not sure if I am dreaming or just lying there awake and thinking about theological concepts, and while I am not really a babe in Christ, as it relates to either the History of Christian Thought, or the History of the Church, I must confess to a true ignorance of this type of situation, within Eastern Orthodoxy. I have had many such conversations, as this, with many people over the years. These conversations have included a very diverse collection of faith traditions; however, even in spite of the many-many barriers (including a true ignorance at times on both sides of the table), the conversation has always been calm, and forgiving, and actually quite pleasant (even when it was very apparent that there was a standing on separate shores).

So, God willing, we will continue, and someone will address my question that I have asked today about different schools of thought and a theological elasticity that is to be found, or is not to be found, as it relates to the Church from her earliest days forward, to where we find ourselves in the present day.

In Christ,
Rick

[Matthew Panchisin]

Dear Rick,


Consider if you will the Holy name of God. Where then does a man find himself? Do you find elasticity or boundries and limitations that are set in place today?

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[Rick H.]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you for this comment. I think you make a very good point[!] with your question/statement, as I perceive it, and especially as one considers the Holy names of God as revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures, there *is* a most fertile ground waiting to be tilled and seeded here. And, as tempting as this is :) . . . I think I would like to remain focused here (believe it or not) ;) . . . and, I am going to try to hold out for an answer to my last question-for at least a bit longer:




Through a consideration limited to the History of Christian Thought, and the History of the Church, have there been different schools of thought, and in this sense a theological elasticity, found *within* Eastern Orthodoxy as it relates to the limits and boundaries of the Church?



In Christ,
Rick

[Celinda Grace]

OK, I feel like a school girl giving back her lessons, but I guess I will swallow my discomfort about looking ignorant and ask if I am understanding things correctly


(#120)"There can be, in this perception, no salvation apart from salvation, no life in Christ apart from Christ."

1) If I am understanding right in Orthodox terminology salvation refers to the process of and fullness of being healed of our separation from God. Salvation is seen in terms of our communion with God being fully restored, the broken image of God within us being repaired and our bondage to sin being overcome. To be saved is to be made alive in Christ.


(#120) Irenaeus fundamentally considers those who depart from the communion of the Church those who ‘defraud themselves of life’ (he elsewhere notes that they commit spiritual homicide, and, personally, suicide). This ‘life’ is that of the Spirit, which constitutes for Irenaeus the vivifying force in man; and which in the ecclesial sphere infuses ordinary disciples with the charisms of prophecy, of teaching, of apostleship.

"defraud themselves of life"

2) If I am reading this right the scismatic sects are stripping their members in some manner of the fullness of their ability to relate to Christ. In this they are moving away from communion and back toward separation, thus slowly dying apart from Christ rather then being made alive in Christ. They are not even living up to what has already been attained much less are they moving ahead. (I have noticed in the PC tradition that those groups who ossify and quit moving ahead tend to eventually lose their life and die out.)


Philip 3:10+10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
12Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
15All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16Only let us live up to what we have already attained. 17Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. [quote]


3)These sects are recognized as wrong because the Church Fathers, with the spiritual vision of Christ, are able to tell the false from the true. To the one who has been given this gift the 'aroma' of Christ is obvious wherever it is found, and the lack or corruption of that aroma is obvious. Of course a given person can only detect the lack according to the fullness of their own realtionship with Christ. Faulty relationship yields lack of ability to discern like looking at something in the twilight rather then the day more subtle errors may be missed. Hence the OC's dependence on both the Church Fathers living in each generation and the volume of literature written by such men.

It seems to me that given the collection of literature over the years even someone who did not have the full gift of spiritual vision but simply was steeped in the Fathers could detect where truth was not living up to what was already attained. However, only the Fathers have the vision to keep things moving ahead.

[quote](#120 & #109) and yet, as Christ is not a concept of truth, but a person met and encountered and known, inauthentic experience yields a false relationship

4) I haven't attended an OC service but the hints I am getting from what I read suggest to me that the ritual in the OC is geared toward making the invisible visible. The communion that we 'experience' in blind faith when we first come to Christ, is made visible in the ritual. This is to preserve an authentic experience of Christ for those who have not yet been healed to the point of being able to perceive Him and experience Him themselves. The core of this is the Chalice and the Eucharist as living embodiements of Christ.

The approach to the Eucharist as the physical body of Christ and the symbology of taking Eucharist seen as actually receiving Christ grounds this sacrament in both the historical Christ as he lived in the flesh and the Spirit of Christ as He lives in us.

[Antonios]

Dear Celinda,

In my opinion, whatever it is worth, you are making great progress in understanding the Orthodox understanding of the life in Christ. Glory be to God for all things!!

So, when will you take the next step and become a catechumen? :)

[Celinda Grace]

Dear Celinda,
So, when will you take the next step and become a catechumen? :)

My dear Antonius, a catechumen? But I have already been baptised and chrismated. Simply because I come from a provincial district of the Church that had inadequate catechetical instruction does not, I think, demand I go through this all over again. I simply need to repair the deficiencies in my instruction.

(LOL!!) See you spied me out. I am still an unrepentant Protestant. :)

[Antonios]

My dear Antonius, a catechumen? But I have already been baptised and chrismated. Simply because I come from a provincial district of the Church that had inadequate catechetical instruction does not, I think, demand I go through this all over again. I simply need to repair the deficiencies in my instruction.

(LOL!!) See you spied me out. I am still an unrepentant Protestant. :)

Well, I'm an unrepentant Orthodox, you see, thus we have much more in common than one may think! :)

[John Charmley]

Dear Matthew,

What you write here

it makes sense to note that the ecclesiology I have attempted to describe cannot with any coherence be held by multiple groups, unless those groups hold that the others subscribing to it do so from a deficient stance. In other words, this ecclesiology loses its own integrity if one attempts to claim it for one's self, and at the same time recognise another group as holding it rightly; for it does not admit of an 'other' in an ecclesiological concept.

is clearly so - from our fractured human perspective.

What you write here

The fundamental centre of the Church is the chalice. It is precisely this grounding in the mystery of human-divine communion that at once makes the Church indissolubly one
is clearly so - and not just from our fractured human perspective.

Between the one and the other may lie more instructive paradoxes than we acknowledge.

I am struck, reading an article in Sobernost by Professor Louth on Severus of Antioch by his historical understanding, which lies along the axis which has been argued for here - one based upon an appreciation of the continuities rather than the discontinuities of the Christian life. Emphasising a point made many times by yourself, amongst others, he reminds us:

The OEcumenical Synod of Nicaea ... was not generally regarded as authoritative until more than fifty years after it took place - until, indeed, the synod of Constantinople put its seal of approval on it in 381. If we apply a similar timescale to the period after Chalcedon, then Severos was living in a period when the final authority of Chalcedon was still in doubt, even from the point of view of the Church that came to accept the oecumenical authority of Chalcedon.
Examining the Christology of St. Severus (as he is to my own communion), Professor Louth goes on to write:

it is difficult for one faithful to the tradition of St. Cyril as passed on through Chalcedon, to regard Severos as anything other than orthodox in his theology, though his terminology is not that of Chalcedon, and ... Severos will be seriously misunderstood if we try to define his terms in accordance with the usage of that synod.

How much wisdom is there in such an approach. Professor Louth, rather than taking up preprepared positions and adopting them because others have done so, tries instead to understand St. Severus not just in his own terms, but in terms of what it is to lead the Christian life and to be one in Him. He notes, with what might even be a touch of irony, that:
the continuing strength of the anti-Chalcedonian tradition in late antiquity seems to be concerned with its conviction that the Chalcedonian tradition had become abstract and philosophical.

Of that last fear, there is some evidence, but how much that fear was swept away by the mystic and cosmic vision of St. Maximos the Confessor - and how much difference that might have made - were it not for the fact that by then, the non-Chalcedonian lands of the empire were already under Arab rule.

Our understanding of our ecclesiology divides us still; so does our understanding of our history. That the chalice unites us says nothing about who 'we' are; but that is known only to Him, and the purpose of the Christian life is to become more like unto Him who saved us - not to recreate Him in our image.

For those who wonder how we might proceed with a Christian history that tells us much (if we will heed it) about some of the questions we have been dealing with in this thread, I would commend Professor Louth's article 'Severos of Antioch: an Orthodox view' in Sobernost 28:2 (2006).


In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

Our understanding of our ecclesiology divides us still; . . . That the chalice unites us says *nothing* about "who 'we' are"; but that is known only to Him,


.
My emphasis here has made this look somewhat like a ransom note, so as an alternative:



Our understanding of our ecclesiology divides us still; . . That the chalice unites us says nothing about who 'we' are; but that is known only to Him,


Dear John,

Thank you. Proverbs 27:17

Dear All,

There have been some very profound contributions--both apophatic and cataphotic--to *this* conversation here, (as it relates to a genuine unity of the Body of Christ and a genuine koinonia of the Holy Spirit--as opposed to an artificial unity/union and an artificial communion/fellowship) and in quite a few other threads, during at least the last two years. However, I am not sure that there is even one that comes anywhere close to articulating in such a concise statement as this--what is at the "Heart" of the matter! In fact, I will go on record as saying that in this context, from my reading as we find ourselves today, there is none that runs even a close second.

And, at the present, (while knowing the same thing can be said in different dialects) my only challenge is not to run-on in a way that would blur, for some, the Truth, and the Beauty, and, the Heavenly *Simplicity* of what is being shared here directly from the Spirit of Life.

So, while I reserve the right to come back later and speak of how what is said here applies directly to a Trinitarian Hermeneutic, which would easily overwhelm all attempts to buttress anything resembling a christian Monism (whether it be co-mingled in one's Christological-Ecclesiology or one's Ecclesiological-Christology), suffice it to say now, the one who can understand what John has said, can also understand that to speak of the unity of the Trinity is not to merely speak of a theological term, but at the "Heart of the Matter," it is to speak of a soteriological one as well! This really does matter[!]--not least to the one who professes a heart for either theosis or 'evangelism and mission.' And, it is only on this "Common Ground" that one can have any 'hope' of knowing, "Truth is Universal. Only the lie is particularist."

And, I was planning to take John's work and break it down here, verse-by-verse. But, now, instead, I am compelled to just go back up and edit the paragraph and place some emphasis on what was said for now , , ,

. . . and, as I think of another recent post, in which we see something akin to "Herman's Hermeneutics," as it relates to the one who would himself subscribe to (and prescribe to others) any form of particularism that is in opposition to a Trinitarian Doctrine and way of knowing, I think it is especially appropriate to consider, really, "How's that working for you?"

Or, possibly, better yet, as it relates specifically to what is discussed here, "What sounds right to you?"

"May a christian Monism be recognized for what it is, and openly rebuked, in all of its manifestations--in all of its 'somethings and somewheres'."


In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

"May a christian Monism be recognized for what it is, and openly rebuked, in all of its manifestations--in all of its 'somethings and somewheres'."

Meditating on this, and thinking over some of what we have been discussing here, I wonder whether we may not be wise to turn to Our Lord Himself if we wish to discern the lineaments of His Church? There are times when I wonder whether our pride can ever quite get itself out of the way, and whether the beams in our own eyes will always seem insignificant to us compared to those fascinating and very prominent motes we are so good at spotting in the eyes of others?

To what extent might we see in the Sermon on the Mount the outlines of Our Lord's vision of the nature of the Church - and what it means to be a Christian?

In Matthew 5:1-2 it seems as though everyone who hears and accepts what Our Lord teaches can become a 'disciple'; it is the acts of hearing and following that matter - not being from the tribes of Israel any longer; the boundaries of discipleship have now been widened to all who will hear and follow. This does not exclude the old Israel; but salvation is no longer confined to it. The Lord opens His arms to all - but only those who hear and follow will understand what is being said.

His disciples are poor, hungry and weeping; they are hated and they are persecuted; these are not the things that the world accounts as success; but they are the attributes of discipleship. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:8-10 describes the reality of being an Apostle in terms that are strikingly similar to those used by Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. As he says in 2 Corinthians 4:11, we are handed over to death so that
the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal flesh.

In living the Beatitudes, we manifest our discipleship, and in the Eucharistic union with Him, we are one.

Or is this missing something? There are more thoughts on the Sermon on the Mount that relate to this theme; but for the moment it seems sufficient to put this toe into the water.

In Christ,

John

[Tim Grass]

To what extent might we see in the Sermon on the Mount the outlines of Our Lord's vision of the nature of the Church - and what it means to be a Christian?

In Matthew 5:1-2 it seems as though everyone who hears and accepts what Our Lord teaches can become a 'disciple'; it is the acts of hearing and following that matter - not being from the tribes of Israel any longer; the boundaries of discipleship have now been widened to all who will hear and follow. This does not exclude the old Israel; but salvation is no longer confined to it. The Lord opens His arms to all - but only those who hear and follow will understand what is being said.

His disciples are poor, hungry and weeping; they are hated and they are persecuted; these are not the things that the world accounts as success; but they are the attributes of discipleship. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 6:8-10 describes the reality of being an Apostle in terms that are strikingly similar to those used by Our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount. As he says in 2 Corinthians 4:11, we are handed over to death so that


But being a disciple isn't the same as being the Church.

--Tim

[Marie-Duquette]

But being a disciple isn't the same as being the Church.

--Tim

Tim,

Perhaps the Church, the members of the Church, all of us: the Hierarchy, clergy and monastics and laity, ALL need to learn ANEW how to truly become disciples of Christ, as Christ Jesus Himself puts it to us in the Scriptures/Gospels!

How to be Christian, and not how to enter into an ethnic juristiction that doesn't speak to the Heart of the Matter., for the individual who is discovering the Church.

If I am a member of the Church, which is the Body of Christ, the Garden of the Holy Spirit, the Hospital of God, the Sheepfold, the Vineyard, the Temple, the Household of God, -- just to mention a few of the analogies used to describe the Church, -- all this is well and good; but, the main question for me at least, is:

How to live Church, as Christ Jesus revealed by His life, death and ressurection and ascension into Heaven, including, 10 days of prayer. silence, and awaiting for the coming of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete., where each person is given the grace to understand the MYSTERY in his/her own language. Otherwise the Church can only become another Tower of Babel, where there is only confusion and misunderstanding.

To put it simply, Jesus demonstrated by His words, actions, and silences that GOD is LOVE! And, He Christ Jesus is the WAY , the TRUTH, the LIFE!

Thank you John Charmley for putting it in such Christ-like words in your last post.

Come Holy Spirit fill the Hearts of your faithful!

Oh Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth who are everywhere and fillest all things, treasury of blessings, giver of life, come and ABIDE in us, cleanse from all impurity and save our souls, OH Good One!

marie_duquette

[John Charmley]

But being a disciple isn't the same as being the Church.

--Tim

Dear Tim,

Indeed, but I think Marie's beautiful and eloquent post speaks to the point you make better than any answer I may have.

The Church is made up of disciples, and those things which mark His disciples seem to mark His Church. We cannot be His disciples if we do not walk in His way; nor can His Church do other than to witness to Him and His Truth.

What the Sermon on the Mount calls us to is not a theoretical experience, but a lived one. As St. Paul tells us in Galatians 2:20: 'It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me'.

Nor is that surprising, since it is surely Christ Himself who emerges from the Beatitudes? All the characteristics He delineates apply to Himself - indeed they provide us with the best portrait we could want of Our Lord; so if we can live up to the Beatitudes, we will indeed live in Him. In that sense, they provide us with a model of the Christian life - which is, I should have thought, of great relevance in defining the Church?

'Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the land' (Matthew 5:5). The connection with Psalm 37:11 is clear, as is the link to Zechariah 9:9-10, where we are told that 'his dominions shall be from sea to sea'. His kingdom, His 'land' is universal - He has come to us all - as He does in the Eucharist. So again, as in what Matthew Steenberg has written earlier, we are driven back to that communion which is at the heart of our faith.

We cannot be a true disciple and be outside the Church - and the Church can only be itself if it walks in His way and teaches us how to do likewise. But though we have eyes, how often do we fail to see? And though we have ears, how seldom do we discern that still, small voice. 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.' (Matthew 5:8) The only way we see God is through the heart, and to do that we need to bring our sinful will into harmony with His will; St. Paul's letter to the Philippians 2:5 points us in exactly this direction.

As I say, there is much more here upon which to meditate and pray - but let us proceed by stages - if there should be a wish for it.

In Christ,

John

[Tim Grass]

Hi John. My point is that what makes disciples doesn't necessary make Church....... so the beatitudes, about being disciples, can't just be taken as a definition of how to be Church. ... you can't be Church without the Beatitude's kind of discipleship..... but just following the Sermon On the Mount doesn't make somebody a part of the Church.

--Tim

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,

Yes, I take your point, but I am struck by the similarities between what it takes to be part of that Eucharistic community and Our Lord's depiction of what it is to be a disciple; is there not something here we have not quite brought out?

For much of this past week or so this thought has been gnawing away at me; perhaps it is just too much time in contemplation - which is why I thought it worth trying to get some comments here.

Marie was onto the train of thought when she wrote

Perhaps the Church, the members of the Church, all of us: the Hierarchy, clergy and monastics and laity, ALL need to learn ANEW how to truly become disciples of Christ, as Christ Jesus Himself puts it to us in the Scriptures/Gospels!
and I wonder where it might lead us?

In Christ,

John

[John Charmley]

One of the places where it may lead is to a consideration of how we are to understand what Our Lord says in Mark 3:34 - namely that whoever 'does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother, my sister, and mother.'

This was a rather shocking statement to Orthodox Jews, to whom the bonds of the birth family were, and are, sacred; the lineage of a person, as some of the Gospel writers themselves show, was a matter a great import; but Our Lord's 'family' - His Church - is not thus confined. The understanding of this was part of what was at issue in Acts 15, to which we have often had occasion to refer. Had there been the formal application of the Jewish social order to the Gentiles, that would have been to deny the universality of the Good News; but the Apostles, guided by the Holy Ghost, provided us with the example of what to do - even if in every age since, there have been those who have, at least in spirit, lined up with those who confused ethnic practice with Christian praxis.


We have already concluded that the Church is the Eucharistic community. It has been suggested in these last few posts that in the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord provides us with a delineation of what it is to walk in His way and to follow Him; that He also describes, in essence, the Church - and His 'family'. His call is universal, saying in Matthew 11:28-30


28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.

His community of disciples is the New Israel, His 'family' more universal in nature than that of the old Israel. Our unity with God the Father comes through our communion with the Incarnate Word, who tells us in Matthew 11:27 that:

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
The paradox of a God of boundless love and a mankind of almost fathomless ignorance and sin in stark need of redemption, has before been noted. In the end, only He knows the true limits of His Church; but He also shows us its characteristics.

His promise is universal; our usual definition of 'the Church' is less so. In the Beatitudes He describes a way of recognising His disciples and His Church; do we recognise it - and ourselves therein? Again, there is more that might be explored; but perhaps one might halt here a while?

In Christ,

John

[Tim Grass]

John says: "One of the places where it may lead is to a consideration of how we are to understand what Our Lord says in Mark 3:34 - namely that whoever 'does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother, my sister, and mother.'

<<snip>>

It has been suggested in these last few posts that in the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord provides us with a delineation of what it is to walk in His way and to follow Him; that He also describes, in essence, the Church - and His 'family'. His call is universal, saying in Matthew 11:28-30"


John, the one who's suggested this is you. I actually think this is a terrible way of trying to delineate... or describe... what the Chuch is. That sermon is about discipleship, which isn't the same thing.

You say:

"His promise is universal; our usual definition of 'the Church' is less so. In the Beatitudes He describes a way of recognising His disciples and His Church; do we recognise it - and ourselves therein? "

Describing the Church is not what the beatitudes are doing..... they're describing how the Church has to live. But that's not the same thing as describing what the Church is. It's like saying "Children should be obedient.... therefore "being obedient" is a definition of who is a child."

People in the Church must "be meek" and "persecuted" and all the other things Christ teaches in the Beatitudes..... but being meek and persecuted does not make one part of the Church.

This is a very unhealthy way of trying to understand the Church. It's the door into total syncretism.

--tim

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,

You write
This is a very unhealthy way of trying to understand the Church. It's the door into total syncretism.

Well, we all have our own definitions of unhealthy, and you may be correct; but I doubt it precludes further discussion, for the reasons that follow.

It really depends how one translates the Greek ecclesia. It appears many times in the Septuagint where it means the community or congregation of God. It is the direct translation of the Hebrew qahal. Is Our Lord not referring to the community of the disciples when he uses the word 'church' here? Our Lord gives us His understanding of what it is to be a disciple, and when He tells us in Matthew 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I build my church
I wonder what you would take 'church' to mean if not the community of disciples?

Is it not the community called to Him which receives Him in the Eucharist? It may have many other features, but to be the community He describes it needs to have all the features He delineates. So, to go back to your point about the child: if one has a comprehensive definition of what it is to be a child, one would look for all of its features - not just one or two - precisely to avoid the problems you mention of a partial definition which can also be misleading.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord gives us the most comprehensive description of what it means to be a disciple; is there no connection between what it takes to be a disciple and the 'community' of disciples - or 'church'?

In Christ,

John

[Mary]

In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord gives us the most comprehensive description of what it means to be a disciple; is there no connection between what it takes to be a disciple and the 'community' of disciples - or 'church'?

In Christ,

John

Not necessarily. I could be totally retarded and incapable of being a disciple because of my non-existant 'spiritual IQ' but I'd still be a part of the Church through baptism and partaking of the Eucharist and other such things, wouldn't I?

Forgive me, for I haven't fully understood most of the past few pages of posts, and what I say may be totally unrelated.

Mary

[John Charmley]

Dear Mary,


I could be totally retarded and incapable of being a disciple because of my non-existant 'spiritual IQ' but I'd still be a part of the Church through baptism and partaking of the Eucharist and other such things, wouldn't I?

That, of course, begs the question that we are discussing in this thread; it does not, however, answer it, I fear.

In Christ,

John

[Tim Grass]

Joh says: "In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord gives us the most comprehensive description of what it means to be a disciple; is there no connection between what it takes to be a disciple and the 'community' of disciples - or 'church'?"


You're polarizing comments.... setting up a split: either the Beatitudes describe what it means to be Church, or that they don't have anything to do with it at all. For shame!

What I said was: "My point is that what makes disciples doesn't necessary make Church....... so the beatitudes, about being disciples, can't just be taken as a definition of how to be Church. ... you can't be Church without the Beatitude's kind of discipleship..... but just following the Sermon On the Mount doesn't make somebody a part of the Church."

In your last post you seem to keep confusing "disciple" and "Church." Of course the Church is a community of disciples..... But every community of disciples is not the Church. Your question ("I wonder what you would take 'church' to mean if not the community of disciples? ") kind of misses the point. You can describe all sorts of things about discipleship that obviously should also describe disciples in the Church..... but that doesn't make descriptions of disciples descriptions of Church.

--tim

[Andrew]

The Church is those who are organically fused into the Life of Christ. You must have His blood coursing through your veins to be a part of Him, to be a part of the Church. Sacramental participation in the ascetic life of the Church means that one is a part of the Church, a part of Christ. If you are not in sacramental communion with Him in the Church, you are not a part of the Church. That is that, it is pretty simple. Being a "Disciple of Christ" according to a moralizing, psychological, emotional understanding of the Beatitudes can be very good, uplifting, and noble, but it does not make one a part of the Church. I am sinner, but I am a part of the Church. There are those who live impeccable lives, but they do not Commune of the Holy Mysteries. Thus, they are not within the Church.

Many of us barely hold onto the Church, but still, we are in the Church. And there are those who are fully ingrained into the Body and reflect Christ to the point where they are set ablaze with His divinity and it becomes their own.

The Beatitudes are Christ's unveiling of how the spiritual life within Him operates. It is not a rhetorical sort of poetry, but a direct statement of how things actually are, as exemplified by the Saints. Those who are pure of heart see God - Elder Joseph, Saint Silouan, Saint Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for their's is the Kingdom of Heaven... you enter into the hell of repentance, and the Holy Spirit Who is the Kingdom enters and enlightens you, as Saint Silouan so wonderfully wrote of. The Beatitudes are understood within the hesychastic-sacramental-ascetical life of the Church, and not according to a moralizing humanistic philanthropic mentality. Not that the ascetical life is not philanthropic! Far from it! It is a Theanthropic philanthropy!

[Tim Grass]

Andrew: that's one of the best posts I've read in a long, long time.

--tim

[John Charmley]

Dear Andrew, Dear Tim,

No one was saying that it was either/or - my point was a simple one. If 'ecclesia' means the community of disciples, we may be able to recognise that community by the characteristics of those who make it up. I am not sure why this seems to be a cause for shame, or to cause problems.

When you write, Andrew that
Being a "Disciple of Christ" according to a moralizing, psychological, emotional understanding of the Beatitudes can be very good, uplifting, and noble, but it does not make one a part of the Church. I am sinner, but I am a part of the Church. There are those who live impeccable lives, but they do not Commune of the Holy Mysteries. Thus, they are not within the Church.
you are, of course, quite correct; however, since we are all sinners and no-one is impeccable by definition save for Our Lord Himself, I am unclear it advances matters very much, interesting though the formulation may be.

When Andrew writes that
The Church is those who are organically fused into the Life of Christ. You must have His blood coursing through your veins to be a part of Him, to be a part of the Church. Sacramental participation in the ascetic life of the Church means that one is a part of the Church, a part of Christ. If you are not in sacramental communion with Him in the Church, you are not a part of the Church. That is that, it is pretty simple. he is, of course, correct; but if it were that 'simple' there would hardly be much to the history of Christianity. That might be a good thing, of course, but the past two thousand years suggests that 'simple' it isn't.

Still, for those who know exactly where the boundaries of the Church are, this must be a tiresome sort of discussion; for those of us who find something paradoxical in the limitless nature of His love, and the universal nature of the call to repentance through Him, and our human struggle with boundaries; and who find in His description of what it means to be a disciple, a call to be one with Him through repentance, prayer and the sacraments, something less than simple, the meditation continues.

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

"In Christian theology particularist thinking is schismatic thinking?"

Dear John,

Firstly, I just have to share something that I read last night at our local booksellers. I was reading a book by a man named Lao Tzu (trans. John C.H. We), and in chap. 71 he wrote:




To realize that our knowledge is ignorance,
This is a noble insight.
To regard our ignorance as knowledge,
This is mental sickness.



And, I could not help but to think of Orthodoxy in general, and Monachos.net in particular when I read this. And, as it applies to this thread (and others) in particular, how helpful. What peace this brings to me--and hopefully any others--who struggle with a moving beyond mere affirmations and negations--who struggle with the desire to express a moving beyond the apophotic and the cataphatic to a true Orthodox Apophotism or Asceticism as it relates to "the boundaries and limits of the Church." To be honest with you, I hated the title of this thread when I first saw it, and thought it was the worst of titles for this discussion. But, now primarily because of the way it is developing/evolving with no small help from you, I think it is the best of titles. I wonder if it is possible that there is a little British Orthodoxy in An American Orthodoxy? Or vice versa? ;) In another translation of Tzu's writing in chap. 71 we read:




Not knowing is true knowledge,
Presuming to know is a disease.
First you realize that you are sick;
Then you can move toward health.



Hmm dear brother . . . possibly we should start another thread to complement the 'Western Literature and its effects on Eastern Orthodoxy', by way of an 'Eastern Literature and its effects on Eastern Orthodoxy'? Or, possibly, this should be included in the American Monasticism? thread in the future? Or for that matter, I wonder how many here in monachosland realize that there is a perfect parallel in what goes on in much of the threads here (the ones of any substance) as it relates to what has and is going on between the two major schools of thought in the far east, namely the Confucians and the Taoists? This would probably be better served up in the A.M.? thread I think. I did some reading in this area, last week, and even here I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry as I see that there *really is* nothing new under the sun, as it relates to the machinations of the mind of man as he lobbies for his chosen position and way of being in life. This really was a time of huge enlightenment for me last week while I was traveling to come to this understanding. I think once and for all it will be very hard to surprise me in the future or catch me off guard as it relates to the Puritanical (or as you have suggested in another thread--even a Taliban like) mindset that can be observed in all groups in one form or another. I really think I have learned this lesson for the very last time--which I think you have already learned for yourself by now. And, which is also hilarious because if I remember correctly from my reading in this thread yesterday, someone accused you of being divisive or setting people at odds by identifying the traditional polarized positions. How absurd[!] to suggest that to analyze a subject is to promote or elevate one position over the other, especially when one is actually best identified with the true Orthodox position which occupies a place of "supra-polarity!" It is true, that to simply exposit some systems is to refute them; but, ultimately, we are not all at the same place in our own personal spiritual paths and journeys, are we? So, there needs to be a greater grace extended especially in the realm of the absurd as we continue our contemplation of the boundaries and limits of the Church especially in light of the above two quotes lest we be doubly guilty of this very same arrogance and absurdity/mental sickness ourselves. But, by God's Grace, there go I?

Otherwise, very good[!] . . . yes, as you say, in my case it is 'less than *simple*', and "the meditation continues." In my case as it relates to this subject, the 'Bear(ers) of small brain(s)' is my teacher! And, partially due to the fact that I have been away for the past week, as well as possessing a strong desire to step over the clever-by-half logic that is being served up here in some of the most recent posts, I would like to go 'back' to where this most recent flurry 'began' when you said:




Meditating on this, and thinking over some of what we have been discussing here, I wonder whether we may not be wise to turn to Our Lord Himself if we wish to discern the lineaments of His Church?



Who, in the world, could question (or even quibble with ;) this? And, I appreciate it very much when you move to the Sermon on the Mount here in this discussion in particular. It is so hard at times to introduce such concepts as these which relate to Kingdom living and in turn the doctrine of the Trinity without provoking the wrath of those who have placed all of their faith in a system as opposed to a Person. Especially in this passage that you have chosen to offer as a means of discerning the lineaments of the Church of God (good word choice here by the way), with great speed the true absurdity of the whole matter is revealed in terms of schismatic thinking--as opposed to the one(s) who would by pass or transcend traditional polarities. For example who would disagree that in Christian theology particularist thinking is schismatic thinking? I don't think anyone here would disagree with this statement, would they? Possibly, there could be a degree of finger pointing here, and I can see in this age of ecclesiastical divisions that those who feel that they have progressed to a place where they can judge another, and are comfortable pointing fingers could say, "You are the schismatic!" to which it could be replied, "No, Sir, You are the schismatic!" And, then this could go on all day back and forth I think, for a very long time with this sort of thing. But, even here this is what I appreciate most about your suggestion that the Sermon on the Mount be considered. As our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed the Kingdom, both the Kingdom that was near, the inner Kingdom, and the Kingdom to come, He was proclaiming a universal truth here, wasn't He? Or, and to harken back to something I asked once before (playing off something Herman had said) What sounds right to you? If I would, as another has, define the 'Particularist' or "Particularism as the name we give to isolating, sectional thinking, which is hence self-complacent and anxiously self-justifying . . . because it only recognizes its own premises and only wants to have its own conclusions accepted," then which sounds right to you? 1.) Some of the truth claims that are made (even in this thread) which employ somewhat of an anxious self-justification and in this sense a type of frenzied activism?; or 2.) The Spirit of Life that is at work in the Person of Christ who is proclaiming the Kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount? Which sounds right to you? Seriously! This is a very *simple* thing to do on this level . . . go back and read the posts in this very illuminating thread, and then go and read the Sermon on the Mount, given by our Lord Jesus Christ, and then see WHO seems to line up with the message and the method of Christ, and who seems to be presenting a different gospel. I think it is very helpful to know that Christ brings both peace and sword doesn't He? There is a time to render apart and a time to sew back together . . . but I am getting a little ahead here, but hopefully, the point has or will be made upon a reading of what is being said here as well as There.

You know John, while I was away in the Smoky Mountains of East Tennessee this past week it dawned on me that this whole situation that you raise here very deeply illustrates what is at the Heart of this whole matter (thanks for your beautiful post by the way Marie--you are such a blessing to this community). In somewhat of a revelation or mini-illumination of sorts, I saw very clearly that in this thread and in what lies at the heart of many of the other threads here on monachos is nothing more than two main schools of thought. Or, in other words, there are those who have put their faith in a Person and there are those who have put their faith in a system. And, as I type this now, I am thinking about how what I have just said can be harmonized and juxtaposed and talked around in circles, or even to put it crudely for effect, the Humpty Dumpty singers can come out and do their act, but I feel strongly that it is just this *simple.* And, I think, this also explains all of the generalization that is done here on this site (viz. the Protestants--the Roman Catholics--the Baptists--the whoever). I have never seen so much generalization in my life from any one place, as if there *is* such a thing as the Protestants or even the Baptists! However necessary to justify one's position--What a truly 'ignorant' approach! But, back to the point, even as evidenced here and elsewhere, when anyone would dare speak of the Kingdom, or especially to link the Trinity and the Kingdom, those who have placed their faith in a system will become anxious in short order, because whether it is due to a clear understanding of what is being suggested, or a less than clear understanding, it *is* the knowledge/knowing of a true fellowship with God in terms of the unity of the Trinity and the Priestly Prayer of Christ in John 17 that will clearly proclaim that we are dealing with soteriological issues here! And, in this sense Kingdom living as the unity of the Trinity is *NOT* merely a theological term anymore; at the Heart of the matter, it is The Heart of Salvation!, it is a soteriological one as well! And, now we are not playing around here anymore are we? This is not recipes, and the like anymore, is it? And, this is enough for now . . . so yes John, the meditation continues. Thank you for fulfilling your role here.

In Christ,
Rick

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

We are all in your debt for this last post - which offers much food for thought. I am rather in agreement about the title of this thread, which was why, in the very first post in what became this thread was framed in the way it was. I thought it was clear enough there that we were trying to escape simple polarities - including those which identified all conservative positions as somehow bad!

I was perplexed by Tim's problems with the Sermon on the Mount as a way of identifying the community of disciples, and still more by the sudden appearance of the cloven-hoof of syncretism. You might, then, imagine my surprise when I sat down this morning with my new book for the week, Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth only to find that very unsyncretic mind applying itself to the Beatitudes for the same purpose! Of course, that's the end of the comparison! My efforts pale into feebleness alongside those of Joseph Ratzinger's; but it was a great relief to me to see that a very conservative and unsyncretic theologian could think that the Beatitudes were a way into trying to understand what the Church is and where its boundaries might lie.

In Chapter 4, The Sermon on the Mount a master-theologian and great Christian soul wrestles with skill, learning and humility with the application of the Beatitudes to the question of what the Church is and of discipleship. I am quite glad, in a sense, that I raised this point before reading what His Holiness wrote; in another sense I am not, since, of course, what he says is so much more profound than anything I ever managed. Here's an example:
The Sermon on the Mount is addressed to the entire world, the entire present and future, and yet it demands discipleship and can be understood and lived out only by following Jesus and accompanying Him on His journey. It took me about three posts to say something that half expressed this paradox.

I doff my cap to His Holiness again when in pithy fashion he says:

The Beatitudes are the transposition of Cross and Resurrection into discipleship. But they apply to the disciple because they were first paradigmatically lived by Christ Himself. Then, in a manner that after all these posts I was still only groping towards, he makes the connection towards which I was rather dimly stumbling:

The Beatitudes display the mystery of Christ himself, and they call us into communion with him. But precisely because of their hidden Christological character, the Beatitudes are also a road map for the Church, which recognises in them the model of what she herself should be.

Back when, Tim described my feeble attempts in this direction (no doubt quite correctly) thus:

This is a very unhealthy way of trying to understand the Church. It's the door into total syncretism.
Well, now that we have a real theologian expressing clearly what I was bumbling towards, I wonder if it might be more helpful?

Any way, Rick, thank you for what you say, and for the thoughts you give us; with them, and the clarity of Joseph Ratzinger, we may yet advance in our appreciation of the Church, its nature and its boundaries. Now, back to the Pope's book.

In Christ,

John

[Tim Grass]

John, you keep on ignoring what I actually write. In your last post you talk about "Tim's problems with the Sermon on the Mount as a way of identifying the community of disciples".... but I've said over and over again that the Sermon on the Mount is about the community of the disciples. Are you afraid to think about other points of view than yours? That's what it seems like when you keep ignoring what people say, just so you can make your point again.

Anthony made a great post..... might be good to think about it.

And I say "syncretism" because it's the door that's opened with a line of thought like:

#1: "To what extent might we see in the Sermon on the Mount the outlines of Our Lord's vision of the nature of the Church?"

#2: "Our Lord says in Mark 3:34 - namely that whoever 'does the will of my Father in Heaven is my brother, my sister, and mother.'"

#3: "It has been suggested in these last few posts that in the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord provides us with a delineation of what it is to walk in His way and to follow Him; that He also describes, in essence, the Church - and His 'family'."

#4: "In the Beatitudes He describes a way of recognising His disciples and His Church"

#5: "In the Sermon on the Mount, Our Lord gives us the most comprehensive description of what it means to be a disciple; is there no connection between what it takes to be a disciple and the 'community' of disciples - or 'church'?"

Those are all quotes from your posts in this thread...... and they pretty obviously get you going on a syncretistic understanding of Church.... mainly, I think, because you don't seem willing to consider that a community of disciples isn't equal to the Church.

The quotes you gave from Pope Benedict's book seem to make my point more than yours........

--tim

[Herman Blaydoe]

I admit this bear of little brain has a very difficult time keeping up with this discussion, but I do think I tend to agree with Tim and Anthony.

When I was an officer in the US Navy, I had to conform to a specific code of conduct. But just because another person followed a similar code of conduct, that did not make them a Naval Officer.

Herman the Pooh

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim,

Please rest assured that I have read very carefully what you write; I am simply less convinced by it than you appear to be.

Is 'the Church' not also 'the community of disciples'? No one is saying that that is all that it is, simply asking whether it is not also that? If it is, then 'by their fruits shall ye know them'.

It would seem as though anything that does not come out where you wish it to is 'syncretist', which is a word you use often as though its mere mention precludes further discussion. +Kallistos and other Orthodox hierarchs also share my concern to find the nature and boundary of the Church, and find it far less simple than yourself and Herman; are we all syncretists - and is to be labelled so by yourself the end of the discussion? Perhaps your own understanding is not shared by all Orthodox - would that trouble you?

When Herman writes


When I was an officer in the US Navy, I had to conform to a specific code of conduct. But just because another person followed a similar code of conduct, that did not make them a Naval Officer he invites the response that if they also wore a naval uniform, hung round in ships, and served a set term, and went through the same training, but happened to be in a different navy, that probably did make them a naval officer - just not one in the US Navy; so, unless one believes that the US Navy is the only Navy ... ?

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

No, John, I know better. the Royal Navy is the only REAL Navy. I am sure Her Majesty would concur.

MAH

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark,

Good to hear from you!

That, of course, is precisely the point being made - all those good old Royal Naval Officers are, of course, entirely convinced that all others are not really 'the navy'!

Am I correct in thinking that before the happy reunion, ROCOR and the MP did not allow concelebration? We have been working with a definition of the Church as a Eucharistic community - so, if there was no concelebration, would that have meant that neither side recognised the other as the Church? What about the old and new Calendarists?

Too many guys in uniforms - I hope Herman has a disclaimer ready.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Sadly, it would take me far more time than I have to read through nine pages of postings in order to make an intelligent, and relevant contribution. However, John, I did read your initial post and was very impressed. You clearly focused on the issues at hand and drew them out without being combative, which would be easy to do.

In the most general terms, the more recent editions of Bishop KALLISTOS' work The Orthodox Church have given more and more pause to the more 'rigorist' minded. Sadly, one (or more) of his best pieces, a quote by Lord Michael Ramsey about the difference between the Anglican and Orthodox views of Tradition has been deleted. It is particularly sad because that quote gave a certain degree of balance to the overall discussion of ecclesiology.

We believe that God is merciful. Whatever is right, true, and just in anybody's life, in any creature's life, or even a rock's "life," that is what He will do. This doesn't mean we have to fabricate theologoumena for how that might work out. We have been given the Gospel of Salvation. All we can do is be faithful to it. If God, from His throne above the heavens, knows that some pieces are there that we can't see, He can act where we cannot. That's the advantage of being God, isn't it? Surely He knows that as humans with limited perspective, we are not always going to judge the circumstances right, not seeing 'the whole picture.' At the same time, He gave us precepts of salvation, and order within the Church. We must be faithful to that. The alternative is Anglican comprehensivness - eternally second guessing the Creator.

Somehow or another, we must, in the same breath, and without contradiction, affirm both the Church of Christ and the mercy of Christ.

MAH

[Tim Grass]

Hi John and everyone else.

The real sign of reading someone's words is some indication you've heard what they said.........

You say: "Is 'the Church' not also 'the community of disciples'?"

This is now the fifth time, I think, I've said "yes," John. But "the community of disciples" is not a synonym for the Church.... and if you've found a community of disciples, you haven't necessarily found the Church.

"No one is saying that that is all that it is, simply asking whether it is not also that? If it is, then 'by their fruits shall ye know them'."

But like I said before, John, the only one asking this is you.... I don't know of anyone who would say that the Church doesn't have to be a community of faithful disciples. Of course it does..... I've said this before, too, in this thread. It's the whole point..... discipleship is the necessary attitude of the Church. But living some kind of discipleship doesn't = the Church.

"It would seem as though anything that does not come out where you wish it to is 'syncretist', which is a word you use often as though its mere mention precludes further discussion."

This is just baiting, John. I've used the word twice that I remember..... and not to just dismiss "anything that does not come out where you wish it," but to show that what you're saying is the door into a view that has "Church" defined abstractly.... and so prone to what syncretism is. These haven't been general comments.... in my last post I strung together specific things you'd said to show exactly what I meant. And using the word doesn't preclude further discussion...... it finds a problem in the way one line of thought's going.

When Herman writes
When I was an officer in the US Navy, I had to conform to a specific code of conduct. But just because another person followed a similar code of conduct, that did not make them a Naval Officer

he invites the response that if they also wore a naval uniform, hung round in ships, and served a set term, and went through the same training, but happened to be in a different navy, that probably did make them a naval officer - just not one in the US Navy; so, unless one believes that the US Navy is the only Navy ... ?

Now you see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Herman's Navy analogy only works for the Church when you use it the way he did...... talking about one Navy. The US Navy's not a general idea, it's one thing. The Church too..... there is only one Church. You taking the analogy and bringing in possibilities about being in other Navys..... this is exactly why what you're saying sounds syncretistic.

"That, of course, is precisely the point being made - all those good old Royal Naval Officers are, of course, entirely convinced that all others are not really 'the navy'!"

....but all other naval officers aren't part of the *Royal Navy*.... that's the point. Unless you're happy seeing "Church" in this analogy is paired up with a general idea of "Naviness," instead of a concrete Navy (and that is syncretism), this misses the point.

You accuse my view of the Church as being simple.... even though you don't know what it is. That's unfair... but it's the least of my worries. But I guess I do disagree with this kind of multi-churching. There is one Church, like our Creed says..... I do believe that this is the Orthodox Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils. You may think this is simplistic..... but it's the faith I've received. To cut short what I think are simplistic, stereotyped reactions, this doesn't mean I try to limit who's called "Christian" or where and how the grace/mercy of God works.... but discipleship isn't the same as Church.

--tim

[Adrian Matthews]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I have read this thread with interest.

Surely it also matters to God what is in the human heart.

In 1966 on October the thirtieth, I experienced a deep repentance and conversion in the heart which was linked to an overwhelming sense of the Presence of Christ and His Love.

Within both mind and heart at the time, I knew beyond any doubt that the Holy Presence with me in that bedroom as I knelt in prayer was the Living and Resurrected Christ.

Over the years I have seen (but am still learning): -

That the Christian life is a constant journeying with Him of constant metanoya and surrender through Christ into the Father’s Love through the gentle drawing of the Holy Spirit: Inner surrender which brings with it growth and change…because of the mutual indwelling and the union of the heart with the Father through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

That Holiness is about (Agape) Love...His Love… and the surrender of the heart to Him… and that this only happens in the place of stillness and prayer.

That the heart of the matter is a matter of the heart surrendering.

That prayer is breath…and that without it the spiritual life within us goes dormant and can die. That prayer is a moment by moment walk in Him as He is in us.

That the Sacraments of the Church and the Community of Faith itself nourish us…and that we cannot effectively live our faith as individuals outside of the Sheepfold of Christ. That solitude is a call from God into the desert of prayer where we are formed in the fire of His Love for us and for the World.

That not to judge another is cardinal…for there is only One who is perfect and all truth… and that my sin (hamartia, rebellion) and sins follow me like a visible trail wherever I go.

I struggle to live in His Way…and am ever more conscious of imperfection and sin within…but also of His great Grace and forgiveness.

I have found within the teachings of the Orthodox Church such affirmation and encouragement on this journey…

I do not yet fully apprehend where the lines are that say whether some-one is within or outside of the Church…the sheepfold of Christ…but I seek understanding of these issues.

My hope and prayer is that as the Holy Orthodox Church engages in dialogue, conciliation and openness with others…seeking a unity of the Spirit without compromise of Her Historic Faith and Holy Tradition: (Not ecumenism at any cost…not syncretism… but dialogue and openness) that many may be drawn to the true riches which are within…not least the teaching on the Prayer of the Heart, Theosis, growth in grace, sanctification and the daily journey with Our Lord, which is so sadly lacking in much of Western Christianity.

In doing this She will surely show where the treasure is and in which field.

In Christ,

Fr Adrian.

[Rick H.]

The USN Branch Theory?




When I was an officer in the US Navy, I had to conform to a specific code of conduct. But just because another person followed a similar code of conduct, that did not make them a Naval Officer.



Dear Herman and All,

I absolutely cannot believe you have sucked me into this Naval Officer analogy thing :) --as it relates to the great "mathatas/ekklesia" debate of '07 :) . . . because I think this is mostly a matter of semantics here that could be cleared up pretty quickly with one well placed indefinite article and one definite article. And, your point *is* understood as 'simply' as you have made it; but, I don't think this one is going to work very well for some, when we take even just one step back (or one breath) here. As we consider such great branches of the United States Armed Services like the US Navy/US Marines, and the US Coast Guard,--not to slight any of the other branches--but just to name a few which all move on the water in defense of this nation . . . we see varying uniforms and codes of conduct, different officers/admirals leading these groups--but here all are One. I think the Coast Guard is primarily dedicated to homeland security (more than to maintaining freedom/liberty on the open seas), so different form and function; however, all work together in a way that I think can be described as an interdependence or possibly in "synergia" as all branches serve the One Government/Kingdom.

So, here, with great respect for your time of service, I will agree with you 100%, your reason and logic *is* rock solid as it relates to the Navy and a Naval Officer in particular. However, as it relates to 'who' the Navy and her officers serve, and supposedly take their direction from, they can in no way[!] lay any exclusive claim to being the only officers in the US Armed Services.

In fact, as I think back to a past life, when I was in a town that had an air show that would draw different military groups/branches together, and how after the show, one night in the bar, and then again later in the hotel swimming pool, I remember how these different groups/branches, in drunken states of stupor, would throw each other through sliding glass windows, and off balconies, and the ambulances would come . . . they would beat each other to a pulp in the name of "their" branch, but they *were/are* all One (in spite of their conduct, regardless of their different uniforms and feelings of superiority over each other).

I remember one night at a hotel, the US Blue Angels were feeling pretty good about themselves--I suspect due to their 'elevated' status--that was one of the most bloody and evil things I have ever seen. Actually, they got into a rolling brawl with the Canadian Snowbirds to end the night (which takes this analogy even further out to sea). But, they didn't get off as easy that time. In the end, they all put on a real show that night, and brought disgrace upon themselves and their uniforms before these officers/gentlemen were hauled away. So, ultimately, to bring this back to where the analogy first began, we can see that even when one has a title, and special clothes, and conforms to a specific code of conduct (during the day anyway) . . . this can even all be completely meaningless and without any true distinction as it relates to the true measure and character of an individual, and in this sense, once again, I think we are directed from such things as outward appearances, and tribal mentalities, to the inner man in our search for Truth as it relates to the Limits and Boundaries and Nature of the Church which hopefully does not dismiss the Kerygma of Christ which is The Kingdom of Heaven!

One day before I die, I would like to realize two goals in my life. One, is to provoke Owen Jones into showing a degree of what is known by most as personality. The second, is to have even just one Orthodox Church member acknowledge that the Gospel of Christ, The Good News of Christ, was and is "The Kingdom of Heaven!"

Now see what you have done Herman! You have got me all fired up with your Navy thing. :) I was just planning on making a little harmless post, but now we will have to move on to Tim's last post where he has very openly and honestly (which I respect very much Tim!) shared his views very clearly. This is not something to rush into--not too smart. But, just as Tim has (wisely) taken his time developing his point very well, he has provided a model for open and honest discussion. Yes, hats-off here. Look at what he is saying with me please:




There is one Church, like our Creed says..... I do believe that this is the Orthodox Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils. You may think this is simplistic..... but it's the faith I've received. To cut short what I think are simplistic, stereotyped reactions, this doesn't mean I try to limit who's called "Christian" or where and how the grace/mercy of God works.... but discipleship isn't the same as Church.



Not that it matters one iota, but I respect this view completely. If we break this down carefully, I think there are some most pleasing points being made here. I understand that this is only one school of thought to be found within Eastern Orthodoxy, and I am thinking of one Romanian Orthodox handbook in particular which would brand this way of thinking as pure heresy in the first order. But, even though not all would agree with what is being said here completely, I hope we see more of this kind of approach here in this thread, otherwise the whole discussion is a farce.

Again, I think we need to be careful to remember to respect others opinions and views that they hold dearly. And, I am thinking, being convicted as I type this, of a few times when I have not done this myself here on Monchos.net in the past. But, the point is there are ways to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" without being overly offensive, if this is your view. Just as there are ways to say, "No Sir! You are mistaken the Emperor has the finest of robes and the finest of accessories!" without being overly aggressive. I am thinking now of a character on the cartoon "SpongeBob Squarepants." Yes, I am a SpongeBob fan. I am out of the closet, and it feels good I must say. But, this character's name is Plankton, he is a very small/microscopic person who wants to take over the world. He is very small but has a loud booming voice, which he employs in his attempts at world domination. Hopefully, there is at least one other person out there who knows about this show :) and can appreciate it when I say, may there be less of the spirit of Plankton in this thread, and more of the Spirit of Life as we move forward.

And, this is what I appreciate about Tim's conclusion in the above. He has made some clear propositions here in a very good way. May, I, and All follow his lead as we move forward in this discussion about the Church.

In Christ,
Rick

PS And, now as I post this, I see Fr. Adrian has blessed us with one of his fine contributions and this forces me to grind more coffee beans and stay for just one more--'but then I really have to go ;)'

[Herman Blaydoe]

Once again, I find myself much more in agreement with Tim. As he points out there is not ONE Navy, RN claims notwithstanding. There are many Navies. Sometimes these Navies cooperate and sometimes they are diametrically and violently opposed. The point does remain that member of the Royal Navy is NOT a member of the US Navy (even if most of US Navy tradition was taken lock stock and barrel from the Royal Navy). The difference between navies and The Church is that there is, in fact, ONE Church founded by Christ Jesus--not many churches. The so-called branch theory that many Anglicans seem very fond of has been declared a heresy formally by the ROCOR at the very least, so it will not find a lot of sympathy among many Orthodox, and that is what seems is being proposed here.

[Father David Moser]

I don't know that I have a whole lot to contribute to thsi discussion at this point, however, let me offer another resource. In the first two Chapters of The Orthodox Church (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_church_s_bulgakov.htm) by Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov presents a very clear picture of the limits of the Church. He (imo) even tackles the question of the seemingly "fuzzy" organizational boundaries in his explanation.

Fr David Moser

[Rick H.]

The difference between navies and The Church is that there is, in fact, ONE Church founded by Christ Jesus--not many churches. The so-called branch theory that many Anglicans seem very fond of has been declared a heresy formally by the ROCOR at the very least, so it will not find a lot of sympathy among many Orthodox, and that is what seems is being proposed here.



Dear Herman,

Now, I will have to ask you, my teacher, two things: 1.) Who is it that seems to be proposing the branch theory here?

And, possibly, a defining of terms is in order. 2.) What is the ('so-called') branch theory as you understand it Pooh? :)

In Christ,
Rick

PS Can I stilll use my new disclaimer even if I am only asking questions?

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Branch Theory holds that the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Anglican Communion are three branches of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This postulation was originally put forth by the Anglican theologian William Palmer and has not been accepted by the other two alledged "branches", that is, the Orthodox or the Catholics.

The reasoning put forth by John Charmley and Fr. Adrian seems to be very similar to "Branch Theory" to this bear of little brain. An explanation as to how it isn't (using simple words please) would certainly be most appreciated.

I'll see your disclaimer and raise you one caveat.

[Adrian Matthews]

Dear Herman,

In actuality Ordination in the Anglican Communion is termed in this way...Ordination into the Church of God.

That is how I understood things when I was ordained...

i.e holding to the Catholic Creeds, the Sacaments and the three fold ministry of the Church (Bishop Priest and Deacon).

This has been the historic position...but I have come to realise that as with all churches of the West... in reality the Anglican Church is a result of an Historic Schism.

My prayer for a long time has been for a return to Orthodoxy and an eventual reconciliation of the Anglican Church with the Churches of the East.

With the departures in recent years from what could be considered a more Orthodox position...particularly in relation to Ordination... The Anglican Church now has great difficulties in maintaining the position that it is part of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Decisions on matters of Faith and Order are matters for the whole Church of Christ to consider in unity and in council under inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Anglican Church has in effect declared UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) and in so doing has put very difficult and I would think insurmountable barriers in place… to further dialogue.

This is a matter of great sadness to many in the Anglican Church which is apparently being driven on the winds of political consideration.

The picture for the future is uncertain...

If the Ordination of women to the Episcopate happens… there will in all probability be a third province within the Church of England created for pastoral reasons…which will cleave to a more Orthodox understanding of Sacraments, Faith and Order and it is from within that grouping that possible future conversations may occur...but also with people gravitating towards the Roman Catholic and to the Orthodox Church and leaving in droves.

I do not endorse entirely the branch theory…which today in its own way can be used more or less to condone schism and further departures from Orthodoxy within the branches and legitimise this…but we must remember that it was intended in its inception in more Traditional times to pave the way for mutual recognition, dialogue, reconciliation of theological understanding and eventual unity.

Many Anglican Divines had this vision.

What I will say is this…that today within Anglicanism (which I know from personal experience)…there are many who are moving in an Orthodox direction and are looking for their spiritual home.

Orthodoxy has no need to alter its position…but I pray that it engages all who are seeking in robust and frank dialogue…

To quote what I wrote in the previous post.

My hope and prayer is that as the Holy Orthodox Church engages in dialogue, conciliation and openness with others…seeking a unity of the Spirit without compromise of Her Historic Faith and Holy Tradition: (Not ecumenism at any cost…not syncretism… but dialogue and openness) that many may be drawn to the true riches which are within…not least the teaching on the Prayer of the Heart, Theosis, growth in grace, sanctification and the daily journey with Our Lord, which is so sadly lacking in much of Western Christianity.

In doing this She will surely show where the treasure is and in which field.

In Christ,

Fr Adrian.

[John Charmley]

Dear Tim, Dear Fr. Adrian, Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Many thanks for all these posts today, all of which are most helpful, and I am very grateful to Tim in particular for bearing with me and helping us all through the thickets of my own dimness.

I think that when Tim writes
this doesn't mean I try to limit who's called "Christian" or where and how the grace/mercy of God works.... but discipleship isn't the same as Church
we reach a place of consensus. Yes, indeed, discipleship is not the same as the Church, and I guess what I was searching towards was the nature of the links between the two.

Fr. Adrian's position is mine entirely, except that I have been unable to remain within the Anglican fold for precisely the reasons he gives. That is why I don't think we are looking for a syncretist view - or at least I'm not, because if I were, I'd have stayed with the Anglicans who provide their own answer.

But I genuinely do not understand what the position was, for example, between ROCOR and the MP pre unity - was concelebration the norm? Possible? Allowable? Yet, whatever the strains and tensions, both parties have come together (praise be!) and have (I think) always recognised the other; but was it as 'the Church'? This is not meant polemically at all, but simply a request for information which might allow others to see how we can have a discussion that is not syncretist in nature, but motivated by a genuine desire to see what can be said about where the Church 'isn't'.

I think, if I may say so, that Tim's comment cited above was very helpful and does move us on. And all I would want to add at this stage is to second and echo Fr. Adrian's moving comment:

My hope and prayer is that as the Holy Orthodox Church engages in dialogue, conciliation and openness with others…seeking a unity of the Spirit without compromise of Her Historic Faith and Holy Tradition: (Not ecumenism at any cost…not syncretism… but dialogue and openness) that many may be drawn to the true riches which are within…not least the teaching on the Prayer of the Heart, Theosis, growth in grace, sanctification and the daily journey with Our Lord, which is so sadly lacking in much of Western Christianity.


In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

But I genuinely do not understand what the position was, for example, between ROCOR and the MP pre unity - was concelebration the norm? Possible? Allowable? Yet, whatever the strains and tensions, both parties have come together (praise be!) and have (I think) always recognised the other; but was it as 'the Church'?

There have been those within the ranks of ROCOR (many of whom have since gone into schism) who declared the MP "graceless" and heretical and therefore no longer part of the Orthodox Church. This is a problematic position for many reasons that I hope we don't need to go into at this point. The Synod of ROCOR has not, for a time, allowed the concelebration of its clergy with the clergy of certain other Orthodox Churches, primarily to express its disapproval of certain trends in ecumenism that it disagreed with. This was NOT a break in communion, per se. Members of non-ROCOR churches could and did receive communion in ROCOR churches. ROCOR never officially forbade its members from receiving communion in other Orthodox churches, even if it did not send its clergy to CONCELEBRATE with other clergy, nor did it invite other clergy to CONCELEBRATE with its own. It has never officially said that the Serbs or the MP or the Antiochians were no longer part of the Church (regardless of the individual opinions of certain bishops). Sometimes family isn't talking with family, but they are still family, unless they renounce their familial status (schism).

[Kris]

The Synod of ROCOR has not, for a time, allowed the concelebration of its clergy with the clergy of certain other Orthodox Churches, primarily to express its disapproval of certain trends in ecumenism that it disagreed with. This was NOT a break in communion, per se. Members of non-ROCOR churches could and did receive communion in ROCOR churches. ROCOR never officially forbade its members from receiving communion in other Orthodox churches, even if it did not send its clergy to CONCELEBRATE with other clergy, nor did it invite other clergy to CONCELEBRATE with its own.

One could compare the situation that existed for some time between the Coptic and Ethiopian Tewahedo churches regarding the election of the Ethiopian Patriarch, which resulted in the two breaking all formal contact (which I'm sure included concelebration of their clergy), but remaining in communion.

[John Charmley]

Dear Kris, Dear Herman,

Terribly helpful, and many thanks. Please be assured I ask for no polemical reason, but simply in order to help establish how complicated the simple question of 'what is the Church' can be.

Herman's comment
There have been those within the ranks of ROCOR (many of whom have since gone into schism) who declared the MP "graceless" and heretical and therefore no longer part of the Orthodox Church gets to the heart of this. If anyone can be bothered to go back to the first post, they'll see that this discussion arose from a concern that, however heartfelt and sincere, the way in which some folk declared others 'no longer part of the Orthodox Church' was both hurtful and unhelpful. If one part of the family decides that others are not part of it, that does not mean they are not - just that there are problems arriving at a consensus as to who is 'family'.

As we have, I think, rather agreed with Matthew Steenberg's excellent post about the Church being a Eucharistic community, not allowing concelebration is saying something about who one regards as part of one's community; others are at liberty to point out the solipsistic nature (at times) of such definitions. I am reminded of a dear colleague who once commented that she was a solipsist but had never come across another such!

I do see where Tim's concerns are coming from, and am far from unsympathetic. And, just because I obviously owe Herman one for making him squint again, I shall try to give
An explanation as to how it isn't (using simple words please) would certainly be most appreciated.


Branch theory is what you say it is, my dear (and far from simple?) Herman. It does not address at all the question of the pre 1054 schism between Churches using the name Orthodox, nor yet the sort of situation where parts of ROCOR (say for example) say that they don't consider the MP 'the Church'; nor does that theory address the nature of family quarrels where some of the family claim others are no longer family. Nor, yet, does it say anything about those who have not had access to Orthodoxy in any form, but have been born and brought up in a Church they were taught to consider Orthodox.

I hope that, for once, I have given a simple answer to a simple question! (Stranger things have happened, I guess, but not many!)

In Christ,

John

[Rick H.]

A Place of Uncertainty as a Common Ground?


Dear John, and All,

John, I have been intrigued by something that you wrote the other day in the following:




I think that when Tim writes

Quotation:
this doesn't mean I try to limit who's called "Christian" or where and how the grace/mercy of God works.... but discipleship isn't the same as Church

we reach a place of consensus.



I think you were actually referring to a place of agreement on the subject of "a" disciple and "The" Church here; however, it occurred to me that if one would seek an Orthodox Perennial Philosophy, so to speak, which would establish a common ground based on the highest common denominators found *within* Eastern Orthodoxy, then the first part of Tim's quote above would clearly be a part of this heavenly symphony. Or, even more specifically, here in this 'herd of horses' at Monachos.net anyway, it occurs to me that throughout each conversation that I have been a part of, or just read along with, after all is said and done, at the end of the day, after all the smoke has cleared there is pretty close to 99.9% agreement that there can be *no limiting* of the grace/mercy (and Love) of God in any place or any 'where.'

I have seen no one directly stand up and go on the record here as stating that God's Grace, Mercy, and Love is limited to any thing or any where.

But, what I am driving at here is that, it also occurs to me that this place of agreement always seems to come in the form of a disclaimer, not on the same level with the primary view/thesis (regardless of the assertion/thesis). And, even more specifically, knowing that a disclaimer, or the term "disclaimer" usually involves some level of uncertainty . . . Are we saying that regardless of what camps we abide in, or what label(s) we accept and wear proudly, or what label(s) we reject and cast off, we can all find a common ground in a place of uncertainty?

I know this is starting to sound like I am pleading a case or arguing for one position over another. But, this is not what I am doing. I am looking for open and honest conversation on this as it relates to the different schools of thought to be found within Orthodoxy. I did go back to your first post in this thread earlier, as you invited us to do recently, and I was reminded of the 'fundamentalist' mindset and the 'liberal' mindset which actually have much in common with each other in terms of method. And, I was reminded of those who fall somewhere in-between these two "polar" positions on this particular continuum. And, I was also reminded of those who would seek to transcend these polarities in particular and this whole continuum in general through a variety of Orthodox and Non-orthodox vehicles, means, and 'methods.'

But, regardless of how we position ourselves to possibly be 'passively' lifted up, and have our minds renewed to the ideal way of understanding, knowing or non-knowing (or even as some outside of monachosland have suggested to a place or philosophy of bewilderment), I wonder what would happen if our conversation here in this thread about the Church could allow some room for a consideration of the Kingdom of God?

Or would this possibly be out of bounds for this thread? When the "An American Orthodoxy?" thread had reached its twenty page limit, I promised to start three new threads dealing with the "I" and the "WE" and the "IT." And, in the "Not I, but Christ" thread we have room for discussion of the "I" in Christ. In the "Divided Without Division" thread, which parallels this one I think, there is room for a discussion of the "WE," the Church of God. And, I will let you in on a secret, which is the "An American Monasticism?" thread that was initiated is really poised to consider the "Kingdom of God;" however, I wonder at this point in time, in this particular thread, if there is any desire to consider the consensus of our monachos community that there can be no limiting of the grace and mercy and love of God by any man or any group of men regardless of the particular group of men (or herd of horses, referring back to the 'aparticularism' monologue on the 'A.O.' thread)?

Why is it that when I attempt to find out more about the Eastern Orthodox view(s) of the Kingdom of God in relation to the Church of God that it is as if I am asking someone to have their teeth drilled without being allowed to have any Novocain first? I know this sounds absurd to even ask, but I cannot help but wonder if the Kingdom of God is a taboo subject with some *within* the Eastern Orthodox Church--as if this concept undermines, or pulls the rug out from under some.

What is the Kingdom of God that Christ came to proclaim? What is the Kingdom of Heaven?

Or, we haven't had any questions posted on the "Spiritual I.Q." thread for a while:

1.) Is it better to ask first: a.) Who is the Church? Or b.) What is the Kingdom of God?

2.) Is it better to seek: a.) the Kingdom of God first? Or b.) Something else first?


According to the written Word of Jesus Christ, is the Kingdom of God to be equated with or 'limited' to the New Testament Church?

In Christ,
Rick

PS I just read a high caliber post that Maria made, about the same time I made this one, that speaks directly to the Trinity and the Kingdom of God. And, I'd like to share a link for any interested:

Contemplation of the divine Logos - Page 3 - Monachos.net Discussion Community (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=45635#post45635)

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Thanks for this post, which does, indeed, point us to a number of directions in which we could go.

If we can identify a 'disciple' do we of necessity identify a member of the Church? If not, what is the practical difference?

One of my reasons for referring folk back to the first post was that I was beginning to think that we had fallen into the dualism there described; I am not sure that in the real world it quite works that way. If the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Alexandria allows Copts in 'mixed' marriages to receive communion, he is recognising the existence of some sort of 'family' or community. Those who subscribed to the unity talks and declared that
'We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition' also recognise some connection.

Of course, and as the very first post acknowledged, others take a very different view. What I tried to do there was not to set up a polarisation; that was an obvious position and would, perhaps, have conduced of nothing profitable. But not to recognise that in the wide world of Orthodoxy there are local variations is simply to close one's eyes. What I was trying to get at was how one might explain and write about such realities without getting into the old trenches. That was why I ended up talking about the Beatitudes - and being surprised but pleased that Pope Benedict does think that there is a real connection between the community of disciples and 'the Church'.

Of course we shall not reach consensus on such matters, and it is unclear to me what the purpose of trying to do so would be; but making a connection between the formal expressions of ecclesiology and the practice which is less black and white, seemed a not unhelpful thing to try to do. I have no idea of how one might describe and articulate the connection in practice, which is why I close this with your challenging and eloquent comment:

I think we are directed from such things as outward appearances, and tribal mentalities, to the inner man in our search for Truth as it relates to the Limits and Boundaries and Nature of the Church which hopefully does not dismiss the Kerygma of Christ which is The Kingdom of Heaven!

That is indeed where I have been trying to reach - without your ability to get to it! There are more questions here, as you point out in your last post, than there are answers; but they are good questions.

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

I have seen no one directly stand up and go on the record here as stating that God's Grace, Mercy, and Love is limited to any thing or any where.

But, what I am driving at here is that, it also occurs to me that this place of agreement always seems to come in the form of a disclaimer, not on the same level with the primary view/thesis (regardless of the assertion/thesis). And, even more specifically, knowing that a disclaimer, or the term "disclaimer" usually involves some level of uncertainty . . . Are we saying that regardless of what camps we abide in, or what label(s) we accept and wear proudly, or what label(s) we reject and cast off, we can all find a common ground in a place of uncertainty?

When I have appealed to the mercy of God it has indeed taken the form of a disclaimer, and I do think that is significant: it is a disclaimer, not a concession. My primary thesis remains that all that I have been given to know, within the context of the Gospel of the Kingdom, is that there is, and only can be, one single Church of Christ, which cannot be divided anymore than the All-Holy Trinity can. My disclaimer states that God, unlike me, has the perfect "point of view." He sees from an infinite perspective, while I see from a limited one. While all the evidence that I can muster might suggest that person X is outside the Church, it is possible that I am mistaken, because of my limited perspective. If I were offerng a concession, I'd be fudging on my primary thesis, and therein lies the difference. It's not the thesis, it's my perspective of how people or even institutions exist that is in question in my mind. Thus, the "place of uncertainty" as Rick calls it, is only to be found in our limited, human perceptions, not in any reality established by God.

Years ago, as I was writing my M.Th. thesis, I had to make a distinction between the activity of God within the Church and His activity outside the Church. To say that God only acts in one place or context is absurd. If that were the case, I'd not be Orthodox today. However, I don't believe that His manner of activity is entirely the same inside and outside the Church. In short, I don't have to affirm the reality of sacramental life outside the Orthodox Church just because I affirm that God acts in people's lives outside the Church. Evidence suggests that God acts in the lives of non-Christians, as once He did with a certain Saul of Tarsus, and with a couple of whole communities as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. God acted through the priest Zecharias, and his wife, the cousin of the Theotokos, when she recognised Mary to be "the Mother of my Lord."

I cannot affirm sacramental life among Anglicans. I cannot look at their celebrations and see something isomorphic with the Orthodox celebration of the Divine Liturgy - the "reasonable and bloodless worship." But, somehow, through my life in Anglicanism, which was eucharistically focused, God acted. My life there had meaning that could only find its true self in Orthodoxy, but it wasn't simply an empty void. Here we have a place of uncertainty. Here again, my perspective is too limited to see the full picture, but that does not mean that I will ascribe to Anglican sacraments the same grace-filled reality that I know to exist in Orthodoxy Mysteries.

Of the Church and the Kingdom, Father Thomas Hopko used to say that cynics would say, "Christ promised us the Kingdom; what we got instead was the church." It is a rather cynical statement. The Kingdom of God is the very content of Orthodox life, that is what the Church is all about. We proclaim the Kingdom in the Divine Liturgy. In Slavic (and traditional Greek) practice, we sing the Beatitudes as the third antiphon on most Sundays. In Slavonic, they begin, "Remember us, O Lord, when Thou comes in Thy Kingdom." It does not say "when Thou comest into Thy Kingdom. We are not with the thief on the cross, who did say "into" ("eis"), though we confess Christ like him. We live after the Resurrection, after Pentecost; when Christ comes for us, He is already in His Kingdom, and it is in the context of the Kingdom that we encounter Him and partake of His holy Body and precious Blood. Again, this was a prominent theme of Fr. Thomas Hopko's ministry as professor and pastor.

There is no reason I can imagine for any Orthodox to hesitate, stumble, choke, or anything else when asked about the Church and the Kingdom. The Kingdom of God is upon us, and among us. Beyond the human failings of the institutions in which the Church is organised on earth, the very content of the life of the Church is the Kingdom.

[Rick H.]

Dear Mark,

Thank you very much for your post here. I appreciate what you have pointed out in the following:




--When I have appealed to the mercy of God it has indeed taken the form of a disclaimer, and I do think that is significant: it is a disclaimer, not a concession.

--Thus, the "place of uncertainty" as Rick calls it, is only to be found in our limited, human perceptions, not in any reality established by God.

--To say that God only acts in one place or context is absurd.

--[. . .] the very content of the life of the Church is the Kingdom.



Very good sir[!], yes . . . 'a disclaimer, not a concession'; however, even better as you ultimately conclude that this place has no reality in terms of the Divine Design!!! I also agree 100% with you on the theater of the absurd that is created by any who would suggest that God only acts in one place. But, I wonder what some others may think of the last point above as the word "life" is used which is followed by the prepositional phrase which contains the word Church. And, possibly, even here there is the need for a defining of terms. But, this really does speak 'directly' to what is being considered here in this thread, not in the sense of trying to equate the New Testament Church with the Kingdom of God, or to limit the Kingdom of God to the New Testament Church, or even to suggest a model whereby the Church *is* the Kingdom of God (which I do not believe you are saying?) . . . but as it relates to "the life of the Church," as you have said, or if you will allow me to say, the Spirit of Life of the Church, I wonder if there would be any follow-up conversation to this last point above?

Thanks again very much Mark! It is a privilege to have you here participating in this discussion.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Mark, I forgot one thing, and I don't want to mess with your primary thesis too much, but, just as we are considering 'the one single Church of Christ', I have to ask the question now, as I have in the past without reponse from anyone: Can the 'All-Holy Trinity' be "Divided without Division?"

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

While I await others to provide a response to both Mark and Rick's excellent posts, I would like to quote St. Gregory Palamas in reference to Rick's question:


"Can the 'All-Holy Trinity' be 'Divided without Division?'"

"Through grace God in His entirety penetrates saints in their entirety, and the saints in their entirety penetrate God entirely."*

Not sure how it relates, but reading your question, Rick, I remebered this from my readings today and thought this may help shed some light (though, I, myself, am in the darkness in how to properly answer)



*The Decleration of the Holy Mountain in Defence of Those Who Devoutly Practice a Life in Stillness

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick, Dear Mark,

We are in Mark's debt for a profound post. It reminded me of something posted elsewhere on this site, from +Hilarion's The Mystery of Faith:


When dealing with the difficult question of Christian divisions, the Orthodox may wish to bear in mind that God alone knows where the limits of the Church are. As St Augustine said, ‘many of those who on earth considered themselves to be alien to the Church will find that on the day of Judgment that they are her citizen; and many of those who thought themselves to be members of the Church will, alas, be found to be alien to her’. To declare that outside of the Orthodox Church there is not and cannot be the grace of God would be to limit God’s omnipotence, to confine Him to a framework outside of which He has no right to act.

As it happens, on that occasion none of us could find the location of the quotation from St. Augustine - but its content is what matters in relation to our theme. It reminds us of the need for humility in the face of His unfathomable and ineffable wisdom.


In Christ,

John

[Herman Blaydoe]

Can the 'All-Holy Trinity' be "Divided without Division?"

Yes.

The intricacies of Trinitarian theology are beyond this bear of little brain, so I will not even attempt to justify this, others will no doubt do a much better job. But we Christians are very fond of our paradoxes aren't we? How can God perfect strength through weakness? We die in order to live? What is up with that? For crying out loud, we worship a crucified God!? How much more paradoxical can you get?

I actually do much better at quantum mechanics and chaos theory, which also has its share of paradoxes. Did you know that a quantum particle can exist in all places at the same time? That according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we simply cannot know for sure the exact location or state of a particle (apophatic)? That when two subatomic particles become "entangled", changing the state of one particle instantaneously changes the state of its entangled partner, even if they are at opposite ends of the universe? That light can behave like a particle and like a wave at the same time (dual natures)?

Did you know that what we often mistake for random happenstance is actually simply a tiny piece of a predictable and completely recreateable ordered pattern?

At the microcosm and macrocosm, God and science meet.

[John Charmley]

Dear Herman,

Quantum mechanics hey?? - not sure this bear of little brain thing is going to stack up after such a wonderful post - but now it is time for my brain to hurt!

But there is much wisdom in what you say, and if I could grasp it properly I think I would come out where you write
At the microcosm and macrocosm, God and science meet.

Now for my asprin!

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Quantum Mechanics meets Cappadocian Trinitarian Theology - what an unfathomable mystery of its own! Yes, however, I was aware of the Heisenberg principle, though I am NO expert in quantum mechanics.

As for the Trinity - we confess at the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in essence and undivided. That term, in Slavonic "nerazdyelnaya" might better be rendered "not sundered." The "raz" part suggests separation, while the "dyel" is from the verb "to make" or "to do" (the ending is just an adjective ending, and the "ne" prefix, of course, shows negation). So, the implication is that the Trinity cannot be divided. There cannot be any form of separation or division of or within the Trinity, only the distinction of Persons (Hypostases).

The Cappadocian explications I have always found more useful and comprehensible than the Augustinian, which tryings to explains the three starting from the one. Of course, this was motivated by a desire to not sound tritheistic; but it is not really very helpful. I have an atheist friend who at least agreed that the Cappadocian explanation doesn't sound like we don't even know what we mean ourselves. The Cappadocian explanation can sound tritheistic, and it depends completely on the absolute bond of the communion of love within the Trinity to avoid actually suggesting tritheism; it does in fact distinguish the Persons as self-aware subjects. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, can each say, "I am" and "You are" but in relation to each other, that "am/are" points to one single reality of being. In Who they are, they are distinct, not different. In what they are they are the same, not not indistinguished. Same "what" but distinct "whos."

The implication to me for eccelsiology is that the Church cannot be divided. While there may be schisms on the surface that can be healed, those are, according to St. Basil the Great, remediable problems over issues of discipline. The very essence of the Church is still what characterises both parties to the schism. When, however, heresy sets in, and this heresy may begin as schism, or schism may take place with an underlying heretical theme (as I was afraid was the case for a while with ROCOR when they put bishops in Russia in the early 1990s), but in such cases, we are speaking of a body departing from the very life of the Church. It may retain the appearance of ecclesiality, but it is not the Church. In some, the worst cases, it will be a travesty of the Church, so alluring, so seeming to be the Church, but in fact, merely an illusion with no substance - a hologram, if you will.

This is the question that faces Oriental and Eastern Orthodox today: can we, or must we say, that in spite of 1,500 years of alienation, we have both preserved not only the same authentic FAith, but the same authentic life? I believe that, in spite of all appearances that suggest the contrary, this is possible. However, if it is so, it is a true gift of God's grace and mercy, something beyond man's doing, or even comprehension. This is a serious question, because neither of us should be able to concede that in spite of actual dogmatic differences and in spite of different ecclesial life, we are really "the same." If our profession of Christ is different, we are different, and one of us is NOT the Church.

It is said by some that we can say where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not. I beg to differ, and I think this is an important point, because it is precisely where my disclaimer, or perhaps "caveat" is a better word" comes in. As Patrick Barnes demonstrates in his book "The Non-Orthodox" Bishop KALLISTOS was walking on thin ice with this remark. He was attempting to uphold the Church's claim, while speculating on how God's mercy might work things out for heterodox to be in the Church. My point in calling my statement a disclaimer is to avoid such speculation. I don't think it is possible - or SAFE. ALL we can do is trust in God's mercy. Trying to figure out how non-Orthodox might really be part of the Church really is nothing but speculation and it leads to all sorts of contradictions. Just as I accept that the Holy Gifts are, after the epiklesis, truly the Body and Blood of Christ, without knowing or even caring how, so I can accept that God can see a person's life from a perspective that I cannot without having to speculate on how their place in the Church might work.

In point of fact, I absolutely categorically believe that we can and must say where the Church is not. There is a world of difference between assessing the ecclesiality of a christian sect and judging the soul of an individual. I feel 100% comfortable with saying that the Anglican Communion is not, never was, and never will be the Church. If the heresy of comprehensiveness is ever overcome, the Anglican Communion will no longer be what it is now. It will be something truly regenerated and new. Even if it is still "Anglican" in the sense of preserving Anglican liturgical practices, it will not be the Anglicanism that has existed since the Reformation era. This does not mean that I believe that all Anglicans are hopelessly lost, no matter how close they may be to Orthodoxy. That is where God's mercy, for all I know, may apply to some. Still, I can't say for sure, one way or the other. I can only affirm God's mercy and leave it there. Anything more is dangerous.

If one were to push the idea that we cannot know where the Church is not, we'd have to admit that indeed, non-Christians even may be part of the Church. Sorry, no can do. It seems to me, much safer to distinguish between individual souls and religious institutions by noting that while a person may not agree, instiutions formalise belief systems and preach them. Those people within the instituions may or may not buy into everything. God knows those things and I cannot judge. Furthermore, God knows what is right, true, and just. I'll leave it to him. In the mean time, I cannot affirm that a religious institution that teaches what is contrary to Sacred Tradition and lives a life alien to the life of the Church is, in any sense of the word, the Church. As such, I have no reservation about saying unequivocally that the Anglican Communion, qua institutio, is NOT the Church, and that not all Anglicans are flaming heretics (some are just smouldering - hehehe).

Have I contradicted myself? Is what I said about the non-Chalcedonians and what I just said about not knowing where the Church is not a contradiction? I don't believe so. I can affirm where the Church clearly is not, but I must also admit where there is evidence that, in spite of historical divisions, Church life may have remained. Being able to discern where the Church is not does not compel me to assert that even the most ancient divisions definitely mean that those on the other side of the dividing line cannot possibly be of the Church. If I do entertain the possibility that they belong to the Church, I am applying the same standard that I do when I discen that Anglicans do not: the standard of a common faith and common life. Certainly, in the case of the non-Chalcedonians –*at least the Copts – I am more and more convinced (that is, I don't have any substantial doubts) that there is commonality of faith and life.

I hope this doesn't confuse my non-Chalcedonian friends, who have read my posts in the past. I am rather reluctant to state categorically that a body that is not in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox IS DEFINITELY the Church. I'd rather be cautious on that. At the same time, I certainly do not accuse them of the Eutychian or Apollinarian heresies. I am one to wait until all the ducks are lined up - that is, until reunion is declared and approved throughout the pleroma of the Church – before speaking unequivocally on the matter.

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark,

We are all in your debt for this important, thought-provoking, and important post. No, I don't think you contradict yourself; but then I tend to agree with you!

A Roman Catholic friend of mine, known for his acerbic sense of humour, commented to me, on reading some of this thread: 'Why don't these chaps just come out and tell you that you're a heretic and bound for the hot places in the hereafter!' Seeing my expression, he added: 'After all, I hate to tell you and your Orthodox chums, but according to our ecclesiology you're all bound for the hot places; there is no salvation outside the Church; the Roman Catholic Church is that Church, so you are all bound for the hot places unless God in His mercy saves you individually.' As you might imagine, I was by now a little wound up - as he had intended, and seeing that, he added: 'And is it not a good thing that God is not bound by the logic of our ecclesiology?'

I could have disagreed on the subject of whose ecclesiology it was, but it seemed not worth the candle. He had expressed, albeit in characteristic style, what he, as a cradle-Catholic, had been taught, and it was what he believed; but he knew he could not and should not try to set limits to the grace and love of God. When pushed, he went along a line not dissimilar to what you have written, Mark, saying that as far as he understood it, he would not be happy to say that the Orthodox had not preserved the same Apostolic faith, but that he could hardly be expected to say that they had, when that was not what his Church taught. He said, in words which were not too far from your formulation, that if it were the case that they had, then it was a mystery beyond his own comprehension - before adding: 'well, at least you're no longer an Anglican - that would mean an eternity in fudge!'

I am glad you brought up Barnes' comments on +Kallistos, since they were the foundation for the first post in this thread. Your formulation
If one were to push the idea that we cannot know where the Church is not, we'd have to admit that indeed, non-Christians even may be part of the Church. Sorry, no can do. It seems to me, much safer to distinguish between individual souls and religious institutions by noting that while a person may not agree, institutions formalise belief systems and preach them. Those people within the institutions may or may not buy into everything. God knows those things and I cannot judge does indeed seem the safest way of attempting a description of these things.

I hope no one is scandalised by your statement that
I can affirm where the Church clearly is not, but I must also admit where there is evidence that, in spite of historical divisions, Church life may have remained. Being able to discern where the Church is not does not compel me to assert that even the most ancient divisions definitely mean that those on the other side of the dividing line cannot possibly be of the Church as it seems to me eirenic in the best sense of that word. Indeed, we cannot speak without equivocation until, as you put it, the ducks are in a row - and it will be some time until that happens - and only if it is His will.

But discussions like this, and posts such as your own do, I hope help us understand more about such matters; and in that sense, I trust, lead us towards an appreciation of His love.

In Christ,

John

[Nina]

'After all, I hate to tell you and your Orthodox chums, but according to our ecclesiology you're all bound for the hot places; there is no salvation outside the Church; the Roman Catholic Church is that Church, so you are all bound for the hot places unless God in His mercy saves you individually.'
John

Giggles... Please convey to your friend my love and thanks for his judgment, but it is not valid and does not apply to me and my friends here because we are Orthodox. Giggles... Unless by "hot places" he means the desert, because we Orthodox thrive in the desert.

And no you are not a heretic in my opinion. :) You just need a bit of vacation, dear John. Get away from it all with only a book such as "Tales of O'Henry" for a while; or visit a so-called third-world country and your perspective will change drastically.

[Rick H.]

"The Language of languages? or In Praise of Folly?"

Dear Antonios,

Thank you very much for this contribution--this one sentence [below] speaks volumes to me as it relates to both the nature as well as the limits and boundaries of "The Church," "The Community of the Cross."




"Through grace God in His entirety penetrates saints in their entirety, and the saints in their entirety penetrate God entirely."



Actually, I am also very much reminded of some of Learner's most excellent contributions to the "Heart of Salvation" thread, here as well, when he spoke of such things as 'Vehicles' and 'Drivers' when he wrote of what I perceived to be something like "On Christian Hitch-Hiking." What a picture that is if you think about it in terms of the man/woman who 'positions' himself/herself via striking a passive pose along the side of the road in the 'hope' of reaching their chosen destination.

But, more specifically, as it relates to your post/quote that you have graced us with, the first two words in the above stand out to me when I read it as if they were in bold face type . . . "Through grace."

Spoken in the instrumental case, the author proposes that grace is a tool/vehicle/means, it is through/by grace, it is by means of grace that one finds himself/herself in a place of a most heavenly interpenetration, a mutual embrace, a true synergia/synergy that renders all miserable discussions such as ours as being only chaff as it relates to this place of knowing which is beyond all knowing and such things as one's ecclesiology! This is The Language of languages. This is also The Language of the Apostle Paul as he spoke, moved by The Spirit of Life, and it was recorded for us. This sounds very much like the blessed Paul to me when we read:




". . .God in His entirety penetrates saints in their entirety, and the saints in their entirety penetrate God entirely."



and here we see that regardless of one's views of a divine liturgy or a cosmic liturgy . . . regardless of one's views of such things as essence and energies . . . regardless of one's views of such things as ecclesiology . . . this is "IT." And, this speaks to what is at the Heart of Salvation doesn't it? Because, in reality, it is not a matter of which vehicle or which method or which means, so much as it is this Place which is beyond all of our somewhat insane and gyrating attempts to point (and grunt) as we discuss such things as The Church and churches in any 'form' or fashion. And, this is why, I think, I am so fond of the question, "Who is the Church?" Not because I think anyone will ever answer this, and not because I have the answer to this question, but because to even ask this question is to demonstrate the folly of the mentality of any who would dare answer this in such a way as to confine or restrict the Spirit of Life. This question is crafted to be 'open ended' for a reason. In fact, I wonder if any have read Erasmus' work, "In Praise of Folly"? This may be a most helpful work to bring into this thread now that I think about it. Or better yet, I wonder if any have seen the print an artist has dedicated to this work? This print shows Erasmus sitting at his writing desk with a quill freshly dipped in one hand, and a puppet which is a "jester" on his other hand. And, he is looking at the puppet, and the puppet is telling him what to write! As this applies to our case, it may be tempting to suggest that if we look to the brim of the jesters hat we may see the word embroidered in very small letters "Individualism." But, that would not be too clever, because another could just as easily suggest that upon a closer inspection one would see in reality the word "Particularism." Which is worse?

Or, possibly, again and better yet . . . as it relates to the genuine Community of the Cross, and such concepts as the above heavenly cooperation/interpenetration, which is worse, the sin of individualism or the sin of particularism?

In Christ,
Rick

PS Antonios, after reading you last very high octane post (thank you for that!) to the energies and essence thread, please consider monitoring and contributing to Maria Mahoney's thread, "The Contemplation of the Divine Logos."

[Rick H.]

Quotation:
Can the 'All-Holy Trinity' be "Divided without Division?"

Yes.



Thank You.

[John Charmley]

Dear Nina,


And no you are not a heretic in my opinion. :) You just need a bit of vacation, dear John. Get away from it all with only a book such as "Tales of O'Henry" for a while; or visit a so-called third-world country and your perspective will change drastically.

Well, the first sentence is a relief; the second excellent advice! Was it Jeremiah who said

“Stand in the ways, and see, and ask which is the good way of the LORD your God, and walk in it and ye shall find rest for your souls.

I have not read O. Henry - but will take on my rest The Warden by Trollope, which will remind me of the nature of ecclesiastical politics. And perhaps I shall visit an inner country, where perspectives will indeed shift.

I am in your debt for the advice - the kindness - and the giggles!

In Christ,

John

[Mark Harrison]

Dear John,

First, Patrick happens to be a friend of mine. I have an autographed copy. In spite of what my own professors would say, I believe Patrick made many spot on observations about the problems of modern ecclesiological talk. It tends too much to dance around issues.

Your Roman Catholic friend really had a good point with his jabs, and while he was trying to get a reaction out of you more than anything, his point is still well taken. I have had to seriously think about the non-Chalcedonian issue and ask myself whether I believe the Coptic Church is in heresy. Is it outside the Church? The compelling evidence is that no, it is not heretical; the Coptic Church, like the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, condemns Apollinarius and Eutyches, and glorifies St. Kyrill of Alexandria, upholding his famous dictum, "mia physis, Theou Logou sesarkomene" (one incarnate nature of God the Word). An EO may well say, "yeah, but they condemn St. Leo the Great," and I think that is going to have to be dealt with, as will the Chalcedonian anathemata against Dioskoros. My own logic has been as such: what is ultimately condemned is the false belief. If even an Ecumenical Council condemned a person for holding a false belief and it is later demonstrated that they did not hold that belief, the council was still inerrant in its doctrinal teaching, but mistaken on an historical point of fact. If the decree of a Council for some reason stated that the sum of 2+2 were 5, we'd all assume that a clerical error had been made and not hold the council to be any less authoritative in matters of doctrine. Thus, there should be no problem with rehabilitating the memories of Dioskoros and Leo from the respective opposite sides.

If we deem each other heretics, we shouldn't beat around the bush. (Is that just an American idiom? If so, what do Brits say?). We definitely shouldn't here because we are attempting to engage in some serious dialogue. Of course, this doesn't mean being unnecessarily acrimonious about it. We can speak in terms of issues instead of persnonalities. The fact is, however, I just don't see the Coptic Church as heretical. I have had definite questions about the Armenians, however. I have read things that sounded truly monophysite. I also have reservations about Rome, but I am not willing to definitively, unequivocally call them heretics either, though I'd be much closer due to the Filioque. My impression from history is that there have definitely been heretical currents at the very least. The question is, how much were they truly dogmatised? I need to sit down and read his writings thoroughly to make any real appraisal, but Pope BENEDICT has really made a positive impression on me and has set in doubt my impressions about Rome historically. Specifically, I can no longer be confident in saying that Rome truly dogmatised the Filioque heresy, in spite of the fact that it was placed into the Liturgy and used as a litmus test against the Greeks. The biggest issue, in my mind at this point, is the Papacy, because the infallibility doctrine was effectively dogmatised at Vatican I. There is also the issue of Thomite vs Palamite theology, which I believe is much more important than people generally talk about. That's all about how we know God and thence, what our Christian lives are really all about. Likewise, the Augustinian doctrine of original guilt is on the same level. I am not prepared to enter into Communion with Rome without those issues being resolved in an Orthodox manner.

But then, what if the Church of Rome stepped down from all of the things Orthodox have problems with? What would we do then? Would I say that all of their clergy had to be ordained and their laity baptised and chrismated? Well, there are solid canonical precedents for not making such demands, but even without those, am I ready to say that church life has been a mere illusion among them? You see, I am prepared to say that about the Anglican Communion. The nature of comprehensiveness and the direction it has gone has left Anglican church life a travesty, worse than a mere illusion. But I am not ready to say the same thing about Rome. And yet, Rome has definitely institutionalised things that I cannot affirm, that I must reject, like those I mentioned above, and a certain piety that tends to lead people into temptation and even error. So it is that with Roman Catholicism I sit on the fence. I guess I hold a great deal of hope.

Now, back to your friend's comment, again recognising that it was intended to be humorous: he was not entirely correct about the RC stance. According to Vatican II, the "separated Eastern Churches" are not heretical, nor are they outside the Church. Vatican II specifically affirmed the "validity" of Orthodox priesthood and sacraments" and even allowed their faithful to attend Orthodox Liturgies if they are in Orthodox lands and cannot attend at Roman Catholic church.

Gotta run,

Mark

[Mark Harrison]

Father John Erickson (SVS) likes to quip about the more radical EOs that the believe that "outside the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church there is nothing but undifferentiated demonic darkness in which the Pope is no different than a witch doctor." Mind you, these particular EOs would say that non-Chalecedonians are DEFINITELY heretics, not to mention those awful Latins whom we despise so much. I seem to recall him commenting once that somebody said something like, "we know the Armenians are heretics because we hate them so much."

Sadly, Fr John does have a point. Such things do happen, and all too often. However, I also have perceived that his quip is also a bit of a caricature based on some prejudice of his own, and that the reconciliation between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR is evidence that in spite of perceptions, ROCOR (which could be considered a paradigmatic Old Calendarist EO jurisdiction) is not quite so black & white rigid.

From what I have observed from dialogue on this forum, I think we all agree that the darkness of heresy covers a wide spectrum from absolute, total darkness, the complete absence of the Light, to what we might call broad twilight. Where there is error, there is darkness; the Light of Christ is being occluded to one degree or another. But we cannot equate the Pope with a witch doctor or even with a Baptist. In everything, I believe we need to be honest in our appraisals, rejoicing in what is right, while not affirming anything that is false. In doing this, I definitely see Roman Catholics in a much different light (to continue Erickson's image) than I do Anglicans.

At the same time, this doesn't mean that I am going to say that outside the canonical bounds of the Church everything is all filled with angelic light. No, as I said, where there is error the Light of Christ is being occluded to some degree. I cannot affirm the sacraments of the Roman Church, but I do believe that there is something more substantial there than there is among Anglicans. I find the OCA practice of receiving Latin clergy in orders, by "vesting" questionable to say the very least. At the same time, the Latins were to give up their erroneous teachings, there would be a basis for applying the canons that do not require (re-) ordination of their clerics.

I think what I am seeing in the end is that spite of the intrusion of theological innovations, an undercurrent of Tradition has remained. This is very different from the Anglican situation in which Tradition itself, not only in its content, but in its very principle was rejected. When the Church fathers speak of the sacraments of heretics as "pollutions" I can see Anglican rites fitting into that category because the belief system is antithetical to Tradition while trying to disguise itself as being "orthodox" or "catholic." On the other hand, Latin rites, I'd tend more to think of as "sterile," or, at best, inefficacious until completed within the Orthodox Church. That is one concept that perhaps Augustine was right about.

Now, having said all of this, if anybody thinks I'm sounding like I am espousing the branch theory in some way, please do correct me!!!

MAH

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark,

You have tempted me back from Hiram's hospital and its Warden, because I want to thank you for two excellent and very profound posts. I don't see any espousal of the 'Branch' theory; I think we may both once have believed it - but neither of us does so any longer.

The differentiation you draw is subtle, and, to me, compelling. As someone who has spent much of the last decade frozen in doubt, I even understand that phenomenon better for your delineating the argument you have. Instinctively I recognised that the Anglican Church has become what you describe; the agony was caused by the fear that this was a subjective, even Protestant view, and that I was deciding on my own initiative to move away from the Church I had been in for most of my life. It was only as I encountered Orthodoxy again that I began to acquire the words which enabled me to see that it was not my will that was saying that this Church was not Apostolic or Catholic; I finally accepted that it was the promptings of the Spirit - however hard that was to understand - and that only obedience was required - not understanding; that came later.

My friend is a very intelligent and committed Catholic, and he often tries to make me think by being provocative; I appreciate his style, and love him for his care. He does, of course, accept the position outlined in "DOMINUS IESUS", and is, when pressed, inclined to agree that a softening of the relatively recent decisions taken by Pius IX about Infallibility would be a move towards a more Apostolic position.

You make a profoundly important point when you write
I think what I am seeing in the end is that spite of the intrusion of theological innovations, an undercurrent of Tradition has remained - and that 'undercurrent' and the depth of the Tradition both matter in discerning boundaries. What I found attractive about Patrick Barnes' writing was that it warned of the dangers to be found in fudging real differences and in pretending that everything was somehow the same, whatever confession you belonged to. Had I believed that I would never have had a problem with being an Anglican, and would never have come here; Mr. Barnes is the best sort of conservative (a term, as I have said before, I am more than happy to use with approval, as it has often been applied to me in another sense). Without good conservatives we would, indeed, get lost in a miasma of happy-clappy 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam', touchy-feely world; had Our Lord wanted me for a sunbeam it appears unlikely He would have made me such a curmudgeon, as an old Anglican priest once told me.

It was trying to find a space between that, and between the Erickson caricature, which prompted me to begin the train of discussion which led to this thread. You have described that space with great deftness, skill, and charity. It will be interesting to see what others say.

Now, back to the garden with my Trollope.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Russian Fathers I know say that RC sacraments are not completely ineffectual but there is no grace. I'm not sure what they mean by that.

[Rick H.]

'United in Division'



On the Nature, Limit, and Boundaries of the Community of the Cross






Quotation:
Can the 'All-Holy Trinity' be "Divided without Division?"


Yes.

The intricacies of Trinitarian theology are beyond this bear of little brain, so I will not even attempt to justify this, others will no doubt do a much better job. But we Christians are very fond of our paradoxes aren't we? How can God perfect strength through weakness? We die in order to live? What is up with that? For crying out loud, we worship a crucified God!? How much more paradoxical can you get?

I actually do much better at quantum mechanics and chaos theory, which also has its share of paradoxes. Did you know that a quantum particle can exist in all places at the same time? That according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, we simply cannot know for sure the exact location or state of a particle (apophatic)? That when two subatomic particles become "entangled", changing the state of one particle instantaneously changes the state of its entangled partner, even if they are at opposite ends of the universe? That light can behave like a particle and like a wave at the same time (dual natures)?

Did you know that what we often mistake for random happenstance is actually simply a tiny piece of a predictable and completely recreateable ordered pattern?

At the microcosm and macrocosm, God and science meet.



Dear Herman, Dear Antonios,

Herman, I can't seem to stop thinking about your post above. Firstly, as it relates to your one word answer to my question which was "Yes," I stand squarely with you as you point to the paradoxical nature of both the question and the answer here. I can see how this might seem to some like there is a little bit of "humpty dumpty" action going on here, but I would like to point out that dialectical theology does *not* say when something is objective and when something is subjective as much as it explores the interplay between such things as christology and ecclesiology, and the Kingdom and the Trinity.

For example, as we consider the words of another who both subscribed to and prescribed that the Trinity is divided, but without division we see that the Trinity is also 'united in division'. And, I think that unless one rejects the latter, then one may also directly apply what is being said to the Assembly of Christ. And, likewise, unless one would make a harsh separation between her christology or his ecclesiology, then who would say that the Community of the Cross of Christ, the genuine disciples of our Lord is not also "united in division" in the very same way? Who would say that?

Do you see what I am proposing here? If we find our being in the Lord Jesus Christ, then what lines of division would we draw as it relates to the Priestly Prayer of Christ [for Unity] in John 17. Or as it relates to such thinking as " Being as Communion" and "The Kingdom and the Trinity," let alone the Priestly Prayer of Christ. Is Christ divided? Is Christ the model for particularism such as we see in even some of our Orthodox thinking and writing found within Eastern Orthodoxy? How could He be the model for this situation?

I think it was Paul who asked the divided/'particularistic' and immature Corinthian Assembly the above question. Is Christ divided?

As we look back through the History of the Church and the History of Christian thought, it becomes very apparent, that individualism is a reaction to particularism and vice versa. One is a bad as the other in this sense, and we see it everywhere even today. But, as it relates to the Church of God, I am not sure which is worse.

But, I wonder if there are any here who would like to go on record as stating that the Trinity is not 'divided, without division' or 'united in division'? Or better yet, and again, who would make 'the Unity a confusion or the division a separation' as it relates to the Trinity and the Kingdom and the Church of God? . . . I really have to wonder, who would do this? . . . and why would anyone want to do this? . . . what could the motivation for such a thing 'be'?

And, Herman and Antonios, I think I will officially catch up with you both later, possibly today, on what I had intended to write, God willing. This post seems to have gone in a different direction this morning. And, I want this to stand alone.

And, what is presented speaks to previous conversations about how we know (which for most of us can be characterized as a classic dualism). And, I don't want this to go off on a tangent about methodology and epistemology at this point, because that would blow this apart once again. The different schools of thought about 'what' Orthodox epistemology *is* drive all such conversations into the looking glass with great speed in reality. And, these do have there place, and even as I am suggesting here as elsewhere, ones ontology models ones epistemology (whereby these dialogues/things really are nothing more than redundant systems); however, . . .

. . . the point I am trying to make here is, let's not dismiss what is being said here--even if it seems to not agree with what we think about our present system . . .

. . . or possibly, better yet, all things considered:

May we not allow our ecclesiology to get in the way of our *understanding* especially as it relates to the organic entity known as the Assembly of Christ.

In Christ,
Rick

Faith in a Person, or Faith in a System?

" . . . that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me."

[Herman Blaydoe]

Being the individual guilty of flinging the "Branch Theory" gauntlet into the discussion, perhaps I should simply say that I can find no fault with Mr. Harrison's reasonings and would happily claim them for my own, as a much better articulation than I am capable of.


Russian Fathers I know say that RC sacraments are not completely ineffectual but there is no grace. I'm not sure what they mean by that.
Sounds like the sort of reasoning the Jesuits might use. I suspect that there may be more Catholic influence within the spirituality of Russia than they care to admit, primarily due to Czar Peter sending clergy to be educated at Catholic seminaries to "westernize" his people. Ironic?

Herman

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

There is something very important implied in the approach Mark uses below.

Ecclesiology always involves an active exercise in recognizing its own churchly image (or not) in others. This is like searching for gold in a hay stack.

I also agree that what draws us together eventually comes down to having a like mind of belief and piety. Since most condemnations of the past really refer to a fundamental divide in belief and piety no matter the historical accuracy of specifics, unity can be found mainly through having a common mind about the Faith. In practice in the past unity was found in a way that precisely did not try to overcome every last sticking point of who had been condemned.

Certainly some sort of ecclesiological principle is at work here which needs a more clear presentation. It seems that unity of belief doesn't deny the past and its divisions but rather places the same events of the past into a new and different context of the unity of the present. We saw this for example in much of the work of unity recently achieved between the Church in Russia and the Church Abroad.

The temptation of course is to try to use the present to deny the past. But the Church actually takes this past and gives it an added meaning it seems. This work can make us nervous since clearly in some way the past does have to be re-interpreted in a different way. What is fundamental can be compromised unless we see and approach the work as that of the Church in which present unity of mind actually recasts past events in a new light. It doesn't just see the past from a different or more positive point of view. Rather it takes the past and adds a light to it which perhaps the past could not have due to circumstances.

The Church has this freedom to 'change the past' which after all is at the basis of the Resurrection. Once Adam & Eve reach out to Christ from Hades past is recast in the present.

By the way that's why all efforts at unity fail before unity of mind has been achieved. Unity begins when we naturally recognize a similarity in those we were once divided from. By 'recognize' I don't mean we search for something we don't see. I mean we work towards a common point based on a common recognition that we already share something fundamentally similar.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

Russian Fathers I know say that RC sacraments are not completely ineffectual but there is no grace. I'm not sure what they mean by that.


Possibly, this is kin to the H.A.C. ?

(the 'Humble Ambiguity' Clause).

[Herman Blaydoe]

The Persons of God are unique, but they are of one mind. They act as One. The Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Protestants, the Moonies, The Buddhists, the Hindi, the Baha'i, are certainly unique, but I have to strongly suspect that they are NOT of one mind. There are many "other gospels" out there that the Apostle Paul warned us against. He writes in several places about the importance of being "of one mind". Therefore, understandings are important, words matter. We cannot simply say "we are one" by ignoring the things that divide us.

If we simply worship "differently", but express the same thoughts, we might be "divided" by language and culture but "not divided" in our theology. This is the remarkable, nay amazing, thing about the Orthodox Church, that the theology is incredibly consistant even across the barriers of language, culture, time, and geography, even without an "infallible" Vicar in charge. This is unity in diversity. We can be "diverse" in how we express the Truth, but we do need to make sure it is, in fact, the same Truth expressed by all.

If this, in any way, contradicts anything that Mark Harrison has posted to date, I gladly defer.

Herman

[Rick H.]

The Persons of God are unique, but they are of one mind. They act as One. The Catholics, the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Protestants, the Moonies, The Buddhists, the Hindi, the Baha'i, are certainly unique, but I have to strongly suspect that they are NOT of one mind. There are many "other gospels" out there that the Apostle Paul warned us against. He writes in several places about the importance of being "of one mind". Therefore, understandings are important, words matter. We cannot simply say "we are one" by ignoring the things that divide us.

If we simply worship "differently", but express the same thoughts, we might be "divided" by language and culture but "not divided" in our theology. This is the remarkable, nay amazing, thing about the Orthodox Church, that the theology is incredibly consistent even across the barriers of language, culture, time, and geography, even without an "infallible" Vicar in charge. This is unity in diversity. We can be "diverse" in how we express the Truth, but we do need to make sure it is, in fact, the same Truth expressed by all.

If this, in any way, contradicts anything that Mark Harrison has posted to date, I gladly defer.

Herman

Dear Herman,

Okay, you got me again! Methodology it is. :) I appreciate your perspective very much. Herman, possibly more than you know, you *are* my teacher, and I suspect many other's as well here. Thank you for your efforts in this thread in particular.

Specifically, I am posting here because your post above which is very helpful, has spurred me to consider such things as 'approaches' or once again the previously discussed 'starting point.'

As it relates to such things as the "I" and "Christ," or as it relates to such things as doing theology from above versus doing theology from below . . . I think it is VERY helpful for us to consider even the 'one mind' [as you have so wisely pointed out] as it relates to where we even begin with our discussion of the Unity that Christ prayed for.

Think about this with me please. Look at the different positions here that are being expressed in this thread. Even here, Herman, we have proof of the unity in diversity that you speak of. But, what I mean is consider who has said what, so far. And, even keep this in mind as we move forward . . . look/see the correlation between who says what and where they start from!

Take your own post above please, how much time do you spend working from above and how much time do you spend working from below? To hopefully, bring a higher degree of clarity, I will mention a contribution by M.C. Steenberg, in the "Not I, but Christ" thread on 4/15/07 for any who may be interested in following-up.

But, for what it may be worth, watch this with me as we go. See if there is not a very clear and present connection in one's present postion as it relates to one's starting place as mentioned above.

Even as it relates to a clear oscillation in some cases, I am convinced that we may have possibly identified a key element here, in our discussion of a genuine unity, of the Assembly of God, as it relates to one's being and knowing--including mine :)

In Christ,
Rick

[Antonios]

Dear Rick,

I have not had much time to 'digest' the many interesting topics and posts that have been placed in the past two days because of responsibilities at work, but I just want to say that I agree with Mark, have learned alot from Herman, am delightful of every one of John's posts, and appreciate your important work in this forum. Now, off to work! :)

[Rick H.]

In the End, the Beginning . . .




Unity begins when we naturally recognize a similarity in those we were once divided from. By 'recognize' I don't mean we search for something we don't see. I mean we work towards a common point based on a common recognition that we already share something fundamentally similar.






The starting-point is in encounter. The Church teaches that to think in divided terms of an exclusive 'I' or 'Thou' is already a broken, fallen perception. The starting-point for understanding must be in the realm of encounter and relation. Accessible analogies are love, marriage, friendships - elements of 'every day' human relationships that indicate a unitive bond formed by the communal presence of two -- things that are one only because they are multiple.

[ . . . ] But perception of truth in Christ is a reality that requires a conversion of our understanding, of our approach to understanding; that demands a spinning about on the heels of our normal way of approaching 'complex issues', starting from different walks altogether, and realising that what is being encountered is not in fact complex, but simple, if the mind is properly converted to it. And that conversion comes often through dramatic change in ways of thinking.



In Christ,
Rick

"Creative powers are awakened at every age, when new possibilities emerge and if they are recognized as such. In this sense we are always standing at the beginning."

[Mark Harrison]

Certainly some sort of ecclesiological principle is at work here which needs a more clear presentation. It seems that unity of belief doesn't deny the past and its divisions but rather places the same events of the past into a new and different context of the unity of the present. We saw this for example in much of the work of unity recently achieved between the Church in Russia and the Church Abroad.

The temptation of course is to try to use the present to deny the past. But the Church actually takes this past and gives it an added meaning it seems. This work can make us nervous since clearly in some way the past does have to be re-interpreted in a different way. What is fundamental can be compromised unless we see and approach the work as that of the Church in which present unity of mind actually recasts past events in a new light. It doesn't just see the past from a different or more positive point of view. Rather it takes the past and adds a light to it which perhaps the past could not have due to circumstances.

The Church has this freedom to 'change the past' which after all is at the basis of the Resurrection. Once Adam & Eve reach out to Christ from Hades past is recast in the present.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Thank you, Fr Raphael. As always, I appreciate your keen reflections. In this particular case you just said almost exactly the same thing I did when discussing Orthodox Christianity with a person more inclined toward Orthodox Judaism. My interlocutor was arguing that the O.T. (Tanakh to the Jews) just doesn't say the things we say it does. I pointed out that our understanding of those prophecies is in the light of Christ. Nobody could have recognised a lot of those prophecies for what they were before Christ. There is a profound hermeneutical principle here, and that principle isn't a theory, it is CHRIST Himself, and by extension, it is the Sacred Tradition preserved within the Church.

And this same principle, I believe, applies to our ecclesiological discussions as well in the way that Fr Raphael has suggested.

[John Charmley]

Dear Mark,


There is a profound hermeneutical principle here, and that principle isn't a theory, it is CHRIST Himself, and by extension, it is the Sacred Tradition preserved within the Church.

And this same principle, I believe, applies to our ecclesiological discussions as well in the way that Fr Raphael has suggested.

This, like Fr. Raphael's contribution, makes another profound contribution to this discussion. Fr. Raphael's comment that
What is fundamental can be compromised unless we see and approach the work as that of the Church in which present unity of mind actually recasts past events in a new light is very much to the point.

It reminds us too of something we ought always to be mindful of - namely that what is now the present will soon be the past, and we cannot be sure how the future will recast it - except that it will be in accordance with the will of the Spirit.

My thanks to you, and to Fr. Raphael - such contributions aid our understanding greatly - both of the position of the other, and of the reasons for it.

In Christ,

John

[Andreas Moran]

Sounds like the sort of reasoning the Jesuits might use. I suspect that there may be more Catholic influence within the spirituality of Russia than they care to admit, primarily due to Czar Peter sending clergy to be educated at Catholic seminaries to "westernize" his people. Ironic?

Herman[/QUOTE]

Dear Herman,

I don't know what Jesuits reason but I cannot accept your point for the reasons following though being no scholar I may not express myself clearly. I think the Russian Fathers may have meant something more on the lines of what Mark Harrison was saying when he said he could not affirm Roman sacraments, whatever he meant by that. Since the Church is a Eucharistic Community, central to the discussion going on here, so far as it relates to the Orthodox Church and the various Christian denominations, is the nature and validity of the eucharist in those denominations (including the Roman Church). The validity of the 'eucharist' in Protestant denominations hardly needs commenting upon. (I say nothing about the Non-Chalcedonian Churches.) That of the Roman Church does. If its eucharist is grace filled, then Roman dogmas not accepted by the Orthodox Church do not affect the validity of its eucharist. But if unity of faith and of dogma determine the nature, the validity of the eucharist - its grace - then the Orthodox Church would have to say, would it not, that the Roman eucharist lacks grace. There is only one Eucharist (as I think I have read) and that is in the Church which has right belief.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Andreas wrote:


Since the Church is a Eucharistic Community, central to the discussion going on here, so far as it relates to the Orthodox Church and the various Christian denominations, is the nature and validity of the eucharist in those denominations (including the Roman Church). The validity of the 'eucharist' in Protestant denominations hardly needs commenting upon. (I say nothing about the Non-Chalcedonian Churches.) That of the Roman Church does. If its eucharist is grace filled, then Roman dogmas not accepted by the Orthodox Church do not affect the validity of its eucharist. But if unity of faith and of dogma determine the nature, the validity of the eucharist - its grace - then the Orthodox Church would have to say, would it not, that the Roman eucharist lacks grace. There is only one Eucharist (as I think I have read) and that is in the Church which has right belief.

The grace we are talking about here is the fullness of the Life of Christ as offered within His Body the Church. Within this Body sacramental life directly reflects this fullness of Life. So the grace found within the sacraments is really an expression of that fullness found within the Church. Both always go together as sunshine to sun.

No created image though exactly describes the reality of the Church. The image of the sun and sunshine could actually be used of any effort to find Christ no matter how incomplete or wrong. It's not even a completely deluded image as if nothing occurs beyond the bounds of the Church.

The Church however refers to a distinct reality and Apostolic tradition handed on from generation to generation. This occurs actively through Her own life and as guided by the Holy Spirit. Even though the Holy Spirit seeks out all only within the Church is there a continual Pentecost. The life of the Church- Her piety & sacramental life- directly reflect this continual Pentecost.

This is why personally although I understand the distress of many of us Orthodox at things like women's or gay ordination, etc, I also think these things are consistent with how others understand and live the Church. After all this is the fundamental issue at stake- what is the Church?

For those whose understanding of the Church has diverged from a truly sacramental understanding something else is found. And since by nature we all try to express what we believe it's only natural that they too put into action what they believe central to the Faith. A tree always produces fruit. But of course as Christ said judge the tree by its fruit.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Rick H.]

'unity of the faith and dogma . . .'

Dear All,

As I read the following:


Since the Church is a Eucharistic Community, central to the discussion going on here, so far as it relates to the Orthodox Church and the various Christian denominations, is the nature and validity of the eucharist in those denominations (including the Roman Church). The validity of the 'eucharist' in Protestant denominations hardly needs commenting upon. (I say nothing about the Non-Chalcedonian Churches.) That of the Roman Church does. If its eucharist is grace filled, then Roman dogmas not accepted by the Orthodox Church do not affect the validity of its eucharist. But if unity of faith and of dogma determine the nature, the validity of the eucharist - its grace - then the Orthodox Church would have to say, would it not, that the Roman eucharist lacks grace. There is only one Eucharist (as I think I have read) and that is in the Church which has right belief.

in light of the "Are the body and blood still bread and wine?" thread, I am now wondering what type of agreement is necessary as it relates to the 'nature and validity of the eucharist'? Within this thread there is positive proof that even here in monachosland, within the E.O here . . . . and there does not appear to be a consensus on this within this E.O. community (not to slight the others), but which I suspect is most likely representative of the Eucharistic Community to be found in our local E. O. parishes as well as within "World Orthodoxy." If 'unity of faith [and dogma]' does indeed 'determine the nature and validity of the eucharist' as asserted above, then what do we do with the *different* schools of thought found *within* Eastern Orthodoxy, as represented in the above mentioned thread? If I remember correctly the word 'heretic' was even being batted around in that thread as it related to some of the views expressed by some of the community members here, just before Matthew graced us with conclusive proof (in my view) of The Orthodox Way. This is an honest question, and one that is easy to understand/support based on the archives here if necessary. In fact, I think a re-reading of this thread may just be in order for this evening.

Possibly, even in this 'Body and Blood' thread, one, such as myself, may come to a fuller understanding of what Alexander Schmemann has written about when he speaks of the "eucharistic crisis" in the Church "which has become chronic" and as he also says regarding the different schools f thought about the eucharist:

"That schizophrenia that poisions the life of the Church and undermines its very foundations [which] has come to be seen as a normal state."

Yes, this is 'central' to this discussion of the nature and the boundaries and the limits of the Church to say the least.



And, as I read the following:




After all this is the fundamental issue at stake- what is the Church?



while, I definitely prefer "Who" instead of 'what' is the Church? . . . I appreciate the clarity of this addition because there are different 'local' views (for the lack of a better term at the present) to be found within World Orthodoxy. And, in this sense, as it relates to the nature and validity (and boundaries?) of the eucharist, yes the question is now is suited by the change to 'what' is the Church, and "Who" are Her assemblies?

I think this is vital as we consider the nature of the eucharist as understood by the Eucharistic Community, because what type of theater is created, what production is there for the world to view if there is not agreement (let alone division) on the nature and validity of the eucharist to be found *within* the Eucharist Community Herself?

In Christ,
Rick

[Mark Harrison]

The implications of the Eucharist for the Church are explicitly stated in the 1983 ROCOR anathema of the Branch Theory. We cannot, and do not, affirm the sacramental rites performed in heretical bodies as being grace-filled. While 'validity' is a rather Latin term, we can speak of 'reality' or "substantiality" (my own term). When I look at Anglican rites, in large part because of their own prayers, but also because of their refusal to affirm somehting as basic as the divinity of Christ, and the Trinity, I see them as lacking substance. They are "holograms." Roman Catholic rites at least have some substance, there is a core of Tradition there, in spite of flaws. I might say that they have precious vessels, but are these vessels filled with divine grace???? I certainly cannot affirm that they are. As far as I can see, the dogmatic divisions are such that one of us is the Church and the other is not, and yet the other is not so alienated as to be completely and totally false either. There is still a kinship, but not identity - as far as I can see, and, apparently as far as the vast majority of Orthodox can see.

[Rick H.]

I haven't viewed the other thread so I can't say anything about what was said there.




Dear Mark,

Thanks again very much for your most excellent work here on this thread! And, I would like to share that if you have time, you may find it most profitable to read through some of the posts in the previously mentioned thread. As I watched the previous discussion/interplay unfold in that thread (as it relates to the surprise of some to learn that this was even open for discussion, let alone a subject of real disagreement and the reasoning/reaction to this place of learning), I can easily say that this was *the* most profitable time of learning, bar none, for me as it relates to Orthodox epistemology. Talk about a short course! I would like to especially steer you towards the sometimes rather lengthy posts of M.C. Steenberg in this thread (viz. post #24, and as it started to wind down) which were pure gold. In Matthew's short-course in this thread there is much bang for the buck where the rubber meets the road, and what is presented in the form of evidence from the History of Christian Thought *cannot* be denied. It can be ignored; but not denied.

And, then from this place, possibly we can pick back up with the question(s) that I posed in my last post as it relates to our present topic.

In Christ,
Rick

[Andreas Moran]

(On Herman's point about Catholic influence in Russia, my wife tells me that whilst there was some contact with the Catholic west (in Paris), it is well known how hostile Peter the Great was towards Catholics after Poltava (where it is said he personally slew a Catholic cleric). In particular, he expelled the Jesuits. By contrast, he was enthusiastic about the attempts by the Anglican Non-Jurors to unite with the Orthodox. Lydia believes Catholic influence is minimal in Russia now, and what there is or used to be came from western Ukraine.)

[Rick H.]

'Knowing & Being': "The Centrality of the Eucharist"

Dear All,

As it relates to my last post, "Orthodox Epistemology?" and the reference to the previous thread--'the body & blood' thread, I would like to direct any interested in following-up on this train of thought, specifically, to post #24 in that thread as it relates to our present topic.

Thanks to the moderators for helping us to stay focused here, with the recent moving of posts.

In Christ,
Rick

PS Possibly, if we ever initiate an A.O.? II thread, it occurs to me that instead of the title "An Amercian Orthodoxy?" a better title could possibly be, "An Orthodox Epistemology?"

[Nina]

I posted something that I read about in my church's bulletin. However, serendipitously I came across some other information on the Archdiocese's website and decided to retract my message.

[Rick H.]

Just My Generation?

Dear All,

I would just like to insert a type of footnote here whereby as the flame in the previous "body and blood" thread seems to have been rekindled somehow . . .

. . . please watch with me, and as much as possible, watch even there how one's starting place relates to one's present position and how much time is spent "above" in relation to how much time is spent "below" in one's writing/thinking/reasoning (in relation to one's present position).

You cannot buy this kind of thing, no matter how much money you have, but as it relates to our present topic here about the Eucharistic Community, please just observe this *for yourself*--firsthand--as much as possible. And, then we can move right back here to pick up with our conversation, and see (via. theory and practice) just exactly 'what' is consistent in some of the above assertions and 'what' is inconsistent with what has been said about the nature and limit and boundaries of the Eucharistic Community--The
Church(es) of God!

In Christ,
Rick

PS Yes, now I think I am beginning to like the word 'what,' as used in an above post, a little better now. Yes, 'what' is the Church and "Who" are the Churches?

. . . In the End, the Beginning . . .

[John Charmley]

Dear Rick,

Thank you for continuing to move us on, and to keep the discussion flowing.

I sense the connection with the 'Body and Blood' thread too, and would like to offer some thoughts which, primarily relate to what we are discussing here, have some relation to the other one.

Reading further into St. Cyril's work I am drawn to his insistence on one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5 is his usual text). It seems as though he stresses something of what Matthew Steenberg has written of (so powerfully) here. Christianity is neither a set of doctrinal constructions, nor yet of dogmatic laws, it is about the relation of persons to a Person. Yet that said, theology is both essential and inevitable, since the object of theological orthodoxy is the maintenance of the right relationship to that Person; it preserves the Truth about His action in His creation, and in redemption and grace. If this balance is upset then what prevails are, in essence, wrong ideas of human life; we see superstition, idolatry, gnosticism flourish. We end up neglecting the primary obligation of mankind - to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness.

So we get, for example, something like the modern western 'Christian' view that our Faith is primarily a system of moral and ethical principles.* Well, certainly such things can be abstracted from our Faith, but they are not its core; indeed they are perhaps the least distinctive and least important part of it. The real substance of the Gospels is a Person and a Life. It is this which St. Cyril's theology does, and helps explain the fierceness of his attack on Nestorius, since if He did not assume the Flesh, it could not be healed. As he wrote:
What else is the nature of manhood except flesh consciously ensouled, in which we assert that the Lord suffered 'in flesh'. Ad. Succens 2, 145D

St. Cyril emphasises that man is not a combination of two distinct elements - soul and body - but rather that he is a mind, physically conditioned, so to say. Christ's human life was a real addition to His eternal life - but one characterised by a new mode of action rather than a new content: what He could always experience as God, He now experienced again as man. In this he accepted Origen's definition of human nature:
by men I mean souls employing bodies. De Princ, 4. 2. 7

Our encounter with that Person, in the Eucharistic feast is at the heart of what it means to be a Christian. The Redeemer is one, and the Christian Faith is one - so must the Church be one. But perhaps here, the words which St. Cyril uses of the union between the divine and human natures in Christ can be applied to His Church:
the manner of the union is entirely beyond human understanding. Quod unus 736 A

Here we have helped each other to a fuller understanding of what we can comprehend, and we have done so in a way that combines conciliation with a firm determination to abate nothing of the substance of our own convictions; that, I think, is to make a contribution towards a real unity - not a unity for itself. As Barth, whom I do not often quote, once wrote:
The quest for the unity of the Church must in fact be identical with the quest for Jesus Christ as the concrete head and Lord of the Church: the blessing of unity cannot be separated from Him who blesses.

In Christ,

John

* Perhaps that's an unfair generalisation based on spending too much time in some parts of Anglicanism; I am assured that in other parts of the west this is not the case: praise be!

[Celinda Grace]

If we paint too broad a picture of the Church giving it infinite boundaries we will not be able to see it. We cannot see the Church as it exists in God beyond all limit or time - but I have garnered a lot out of this thread as we have ‘felt’ around for the essence of the church as it exists both in time and across time in the eternal ages.

Mathew emphasized that the center of the Church is the Chalice. He also emphasized encounter with Christ.

Fr. Raphael said,


Ecclesiology always involves an active exercise in recognizing its own churchly image (or not) in others. This is like searching for gold in a hay stack.

“There is a sense in which an Orthodox expression of the faith is unchanging not as an absolute principle but rather in the sense of spiritual continuity. In other words we have the conviction that throughout the course of the Church's history we have the same shared Apostolic faith. And this Apostolic Faith no matter the variation with which it has been expressed still is the same Faith. This in fact is what Tradition is: a continuity of the one Faith as expressed over time through the life of the Church.”

Even though the Holy Spirit seeks out all only within the Church is there a continual Pentecost. The life of the Church- Her piety & sacramental life- directly reflect this continual Pentecost.


This makes me ask the question “what is in the Chalice, what is in the Tradition, What is in transforming encounter?” ---The Life of Christ made manifest --- as Fr. Raphael has said -a continual Pentecost.

It seems to me that the Church is precisely the source of the Life, the source of the transforming power of God at work on earth. If we say that power for salvation lies outside the church we have just entirely lost any meaning for the Church’s existence. If salvation were available through creation or through man’s own efforts, then Christ’s work is meaningless, therefore the power for salvation, the Life that transforms humanity must have its source in Christ. Now to say that Christ’s life exists outside of Christ also seems absurd. Christ may touch someone to heal them, but the person healed has no healing power by which to heal others.

As I meditate on Church history I see that most heresies tend to die out over time. They may pop up over and over, but what real difference for good do they make? What continuity do they have? In the letters to the seven churches in Revelations you see a common theme -"Repent and do the deeds you did at first; or else I am coming to you and will remover your lampstand out of its place...To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life...Rev 2:5,7

Yet as I look at the history of the Catholic Church and its Protestant offshoots, I see both the power to change culture and a continuity of life. This makes me ask, What is God doing for surely this is Christ?

The essence of the love of Christ is that Love comes down. Christ emptied Himself taking on our humanity so that we could regain the opportunity to participate in His divinity. I see the Great Schism as an act of God’s mercy not as a heresy of the normal sort.

What was God to do about a culture that was running headlong away from Him into rationalism and a rejection of spiritual truth and reality? He did what love always does. Love conforms itself to the need of the Beloved. God allowed part of His Church to fall because He was not willing to abandon the culture. The Church in the West has lived in and presented the gospel to the Western culture in a way that Western culture could understand and accept. Such is the humility of the Creator of the universe. The life of the Church could not be manifested fully for the culture could not receive the fullness of it. That did not mean that that life was not there in it's fullness, just that it could not be manifested fully.

What is the result of God’s humility? The Church has changed culture so that now culture is once again coming into a place where encounter with the Living God is possible. The Western Church itself is on the road to regaining what it lost and is bringing Western Culture with it.

[John Charmley]

Dear Celinda,

Thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

When you write that
If we paint too broad a picture of the Church giving it infinite boundaries we will not be able to see it you allude to what is central to this discussion.

We have, on several occasions, found ourselves making a distinction be