What is the Church?

[David Dietrich]

I am somewhat confused as to the definition of the Church. This is because there are two conflicting definitions that seem equally valid in my mind. The first definition is that the Church is the body of Christ, comprised of those who participate in His life through faith and sacrament. The second definition is that the Church is the body of Christ, comprised of those who participate in Him by following his Apostles and their descendants.

These definitions conflict when there are people who have true faith in Jesus Christ, and live His life, but are not being led by "true" bishops, those who are descended through the Holy Ghost from the Apostles. I know that there must be those who live the true Faith outside of the leadership of true bishops and vis versa.

My quandary has as its focal point the dichotomy between faith and succession. Is succession dependent on faith, or is faith dependent on succession? Does faith, or succession define the Church?

[Nina]

Excuse me please because it was a double post.

[Nina]

The grace of God is an important factor for distinguishing.

There is a story about the priest who had committed grave sins. The moment he entered in the Holy Altar right at the door there were 2 angels who would lift his grave (I recall murder being mentioned) unrepeated sins which were upon his shoulders. The priest would celebrate the Liturgy and at the very end when he would leave the Holy Altar for continuing his day the angels would place back the sins on the shoulders of the priest.

Also there is the story of the young who went to confess and saw his spiritual father committing a sin. Shocked he left and started thinking that all had been in vain because he had confessed to a person who is such a sinner and without grace. Thinking this way he comes upon a crystal clear beautiful water. He is amazed and tries to find the source because he imagines that the source would be marvelous since the water is so clear where is at. When he finds the source finally the discovery stuns him. The clear, beautiful water springs from a dog's skull (mouth). He has not collected himself from this surprise when he hears the voice of an angel who asks him: "Why are you surprised?" And the angel goes on to make an analogy between Mysteries/God's grace and the water versus the dog's skull and the sinner father confessor. He then urges the young man to return back to his spiritual father. He does and when his spiritual father hears the story starts crying and repents and asks forgiveness.

Please pardon the paraphrasing of these stories from the Fathers.

Maybe not the direct answer to your questions, but some food for active and critical thinking.

[Sean M.]

I don't know what the Orthodox view is regarding the nature of the Church.

The second vatican council and the catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Church is both visible and spiritual and compares this mystery to the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

[Demetrios]

I don't know what the Orthodox view is regarding the nature of the Church.

The second vatican council and the catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Church is both visible and spiritual and compares this mystery to the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

I think it is a mystery. Except to those who are judging us.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I am somewhat confused as to the definition of the Church. This is because there are two conflicting definitions that seem equally valid in my mind. The first definition is that the Church is the body of Christ, comprised of those who participate in His life through faith and sacrament. The second definition is that the Church is the body of Christ, comprised of those who participate in Him by following his Apostles and their descendants.

These definitions conflict when there are people who have true faith in Jesus Christ, and live His life, but are not being led by "true" bishops, those who are descended through the Holy Ghost from the Apostles. I know that there must be those who live the true Faith outside of the leadership of true bishops and vis versa.

My quandary has as its focal point the dichotomy between faith and succession. Is succession dependent on faith, or is faith dependent on succession? Does faith, or succession define the Church?


Maybe the dichotomy is false? Perhaps there is no dichotomy? BOTH are necessary. If you don't have both, you don't the whole church, merely something less. In those situations, we hope that God provides whatever is lacking because He is bigger than our ability to define.

[Robert Fortuin]

Dear All,

In the interest of needlessly duplicating efforts, may I point you to the following thread http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3739

It will take a bit of time reading through the posts, but you will find much of interest.

Blessings!

[Ken McRae]

I am somewhat confused as to the definition of the Church. This is because there are two conflicting definitions that seem equally valid in my mind. The first definition is that the Church is the body of Christ, comprised of those who participate in His life through faith and sacrament. The second definition is that the Church is the body of Christ, comprised of those who participate in Him by following his Apostles and their descendants.

According to the Lord himself, whoever received the Apostles, in his Name, received both him and his Father who sent him. In those few words of his, we have the very essence, principle and seed of apostolic succession. This very same principle obviously applies to the Apostolic fathers who were ordained by the Apostles themselves; and who directly succeeded them, as the Apostles departed, one-by-one, unto the Lord. Thus, to reject them who were ordained by the Apostles is, in fact, to reject the Apostles themselves.

The Biblical doctrine of apostolic succession can never be successfully refuted or challenged. It is a doctrine so firmly rooted and entrenched in both Scripture and Living Tradition, that it strikes me as virtual madness for one to attempt to overthrow it. This is only too apparent from these five scripture texts, below:-

1) "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands." - 2 Tim. 1:6

2) "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." - 1 Tim. 4:14

3) "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 2 Tim. 2:2

4) "A bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre. But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught." - Titus 1:7-9

5) "Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself pure." - 1 Tim. 5:22

Now, who would ever doubt, but a madman, that the faithful and careful application of the above apostolic counsels, issues forth in an orderly succession of bishops? And it should be no less obvious to all clear minds that 2 Tim. 2:2, (the third text cited,) refers to an "oral" or "living" transmission of the faith; as it makes no reference at all to a written tradition, but one communicated in a living manner, and directly handed down from father to son. The fourth text reserves the episcopal office for "sober, just, holy," and "temperate" men; or men of great faith, having acquired much grace and experience in the second stage of theosis.

The lawful or canonical administration of the holy sacraments is contingent upon a bishop's good standing in apostolic succession. If his canonical status should become compromised, it would mean the termination of his administration, and the sacramental loss of grace. That is a general rule; and as far as exceptions to that are concerned, that debate continues to rage even until now; and has been the fodder of many discussions on this very website.

The debate largely concerns the validity of baptisms performed outside the "canonical" Church, whether among the Orthodox or heterodox. The Russians receive Catholics into Orthodoxy not by baptism, but by chrismation. On the other hand, I know the Holy Mountain re-baptizes "Catholic" converts to Orthodoxy; but where precisely the EP stands on this question, I am unsure; though I'm inclined to think he does not re-baptize Catholics; though I certainly remain open to being corrected on that.

However, concerning St. Paul's eucharistic teaching, as recorded for us in 1 Cor. 10:16-17, it would seem that membership in the One Church is strictly limited to all those who partake of the One Bread: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread." (1 Cor. 10:16-17) In the words of Christ, himself: "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (Jn. 6:53)

Thus, it would appear that while one may retain the grace of baptism "outside the Church," yet without some form of mystical participation in that "One Bread," there is some terminal sense in which one has "no life." (Jn. 6:53) Concerning partaking of the body of Christ, though, there appears to be some question as to whether or not it is possible to partake of the mystery "in a figure," after the manner of Abraham's receiving Isaac, "in a firgure," (Heb. 11:17-19) from the dead; without ever receiving the literally transfigured gifts themselves, into our physical mouth(s) and bodies; and so to participate in His mystical life, merely through spiritual intentions and holy aspirations alone?


These definitions conflict when there are people who have true faith in Jesus Christ, and live His life, but are not being led by "true" bishops, those who are descended through the Holy Ghost from the Apostles. I know that there must be those who live the true Faith outside of the leadership of true bishops and vis versa.

Yes, I can certainly see what you mean, and even agree with it, to a point. There is no question but that there are many "graceless" virgins in the canonical Church. That is the mystery revealed in the Parable of Ten Virgins. Thus, if it is possible to for graceless virgins to exist in the one true Church, then it must be equally possible for grace-filled virgins to exist "outside" the canonical Church as well. As for grace-filled historical figures existing outside the canonical Church, I cite the examples of the Roman Centurion in the Gospel, the Emperor St. Constantine, and St. Isaac the Syrian; to name but three famous persons.



My quandary has as its focal point the dichotomy between faith and succession. Is succession dependent on faith, or is faith dependent on succession? Does faith, or succession define the Church?

Now, as to the relationship between the living faith and "canonical" authority, "then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." (MATT. 23:1-3) From this teaching, it appears obvious that graceless persons may yet sit in the Chair of Moses, and command all the authority that goes with it.

Surely the Pharisees, to which Christ alludes, were graceless; and yet Christ did not make their ecclesiastical authority to reside in their own personal holiness, but rather in the Chair and Office itself. However, being but "outwardly" linked to the canonical Church will profit us nothing, if we are not inwardly linked to Christ's mystical body, through the Spirit. Outward profession profits nothing without the inward power of it. A mere outward link to the Tradition profits us nothing if It does not live within us.

It appears, in fact, that there is as much an inward and mystical aspect to apostolic succession, as there is an "outward" and external aspect to it. That appears, in part, to be how justification is made for the veneration of St. Isaac, who lived and died "outside" the canonical Church. He must have managed somehow to retain the mystical aspect of apostolic succession, (through a line of grace-bearing elders, existing outside the canonical Church,) despite losing it sacramentally and outwardly in the episcopl office.

As St. Isaac the Syrian live and laboured his entire life in the Nestorian communion, it is highly doubtful he ever partook of an Orthodox Eucharist; or ever received an "Orthodox" baptism. And, according to Eusebius, (the Church historian,) St. Constantine's baptism was performed by an Arian Bishop. So, how does that affect his membership in the Orthodox Church, seeing that the Greeks reject heretical baptisms?

[Ken McRae]

"I will set forth briefly what I believe to be the Orthodox attitude towards non-Orthodox Christians. (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/fsr_84.aspx)

1. Orthodoxy is the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of mankind, and therefore we should guard with our life the purity of its teaching and our own faithfulness to it. In the Orthodox Church alone is grace given through the sacraments (most other churches don’t even claim to have sacraments in any serious sense). The Orthodox Church alone is the Body of Christ, and if salvation is difficult enough within the Orthodox Church, how much more difficult must it be outside the Church!

2. However, it is not for us to define the state of those who are outside the Orthodox Church. If God wishes to grant salvation to some who are Christians in the best way they know, but without ever knowing the Orthodox Church—that is up to Him, not us. But when He does this, it is outside the normal way that He established for salvation—which is in the Church, as a part of the Body of Christ. I myself can accept the experience of Protestants being ‘born-again’ in Christ; I have met people who have changed their lives entirely through meeting Christ, and I cannot deny their experience just because they are not Orthodox. I call these people “subjective” or “beginning” Christians. But until they are united to the Orthodox Church they cannot have the fullness of Christianity, they cannot be objectively Christian as belonging to the Body of Christ and receiving the grace of the sacraments. I think this is why there are so many sects among them—they begin the Christian life with a genuine conversion to Christ, but they cannot continue the Christian life in the right way until they are united to the Orthodox Church, and they therefore substitute their own opinions and subjective experiences for the Church’s teaching and sacraments.

About those Christians who are outside the Orthodox Church, therefore, I would say: they do not yet have the full truth—perhaps it just hasn’t been revealed to them yet, or perhaps it is our fault for not living and teaching the Orthodox Faith in a way they can understand. With such people we cannot be one in the Faith, but there is no reason why we should regard them as totally estranged or as equal to pagans. - Fr. Seraphim Rose