www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What is the Church?

OK, I follow that.


[/b]


OK, I follow that too. I would add that this also expresses the unity of the one Church of Christ.


ah-HA! Now I can see your thinking. Fascinating ! I hadn't thought of that -- I hadn't made the jump / connection from the Eastern Catholic Churches to the Orthodox Churches like you did just here. What I mean is: I hadn't thought it through like that before. Hmm: you have given me something to think on, Michael, and I thank you !

-- John

Andrew,

I think you are confused in what I was trying to say, and I apologize if my lack of skill in expressing myself caused that confusion.

I don't believe that the "ontological basis" of the Church is the pope of Rome. I believe that the ontological basis of the Church is Jesus Christ, and thus the Eucharist. That was part of my previous post that you chose not to quote,

But, if I was unclear then, I apologize. Allow me to be clear here. The ontological basis of the Church is Jesus.

As for the papacy, I do not see it as the "ontological basis of the Church." I see it as an expression of (and, on its better days, a servant of) the unity of the one Church of Jesus Christ.

-- John

What is the Church? I think without getting specific basically we might see the Church in many ways...

The Church is Servant on mission to serve others.

The Church is Word commissioned to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Church is Sacrament enabling avenues of grace and life.

The Church is structure ...with God given authority.

The Church is community...including the people of God.

There are probably other ways to see the church I have not included, e.g. The church as hospital to bring reconciliation and healing. I think we need all of the above to truly be church and to truly do church.

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church... The word church used here in the original Greek is ecclesia which means "the gathering."

My 2 cents,

Porter

Then I am not following what you�re saying. This

Sounds to me like you�re saying that the church (not just the church under the Omophorion of the western patriarch) in its ultimate fullness (i.e. its truest state of being) is present when all other bishops are subjugated to the Roman Pontiff; and that they derive their fullest �trueness� from him. It�s hard for me to draw another conclusion from your words.

The Orthodox Church does not derive its validity or trueness from the Roman Pontiff, nor does it become valid by the presence of parallel churches carved from individual churches that are in ecclesial union with the Roman Pontiff.

They are full and true by their own nature, and if there is something lacking by a lack of communion, it is missing on both sides.

We are not like Protestants, as has been mentioned twice.

Andrew

Andrew,

I don't know how much more plainly I can put it than in my last post: The ontological basis of the Church is Jesus.

As for the papacy, it is not the basis of the fullness of the Church; it is (in my belief) an expression of that fullness.

-- John

Andrew,

I just also want to say that I acknowledge that the Orthodox view of the Church is different from the Catholic view of the Church.

I would be curious to know what is your view, as an Orthodox, of the Church?

-- John

Dear John,

I think that Andrew basically sees it as being "Orthodox!"

Alex

It seemed to me you were saying this is not an expression of the fullness of the church, but the expression of it. I grant you I understand that Catholicism does not teach the Pope himself is the ultimate ground of the reality of the church. Your other statements however seem to make the fullness of the church conditional on him however, which is almost equally as critical. What comes immediately to mind is the sort of "vicar of Christ" language that gained currency in the western church.

It seems to me the Eucharist is foundational for understanding what the church is, or at least where it is. That is where I would start. Fr. Georges Florovsky also wrote an interesting article on the limits of the church.

There is so much more to what the church is than just administrative or ecclesial boundaries however, and I think often those boundaries may be blurred, but the church is still present.

Ultimately it is the temporal manifestation of the eternal, the hospital of the soul and so on. Those are the real purposes of the church.

Andrew

- Also, I want to add I was not trying to criticize the thoughts of lost&found in my earlier post. I understand the intention of what he was saying.

Andrew,

So are you saying that if a church has valid sacraments (especially the Eucharist) then they are Christ's visible Church? If so, then my next question is do you believe any church besides the Orthodox have valid sacraments? And if another church has, or may have, valid sacraments then does that mean Christ's visible church is, or possibly is, divided?

Matt

Dear Matt,

You started this thread with

Please tell me what your thoughts are on this. I would like to know.

Thank you.

Michael

To expand on the thoughts of Rilian and Porter... the ekklesia is a hospital for sinners.

Ack! I never should of mentioned I have my own opinions, as it is so much easier to ask questions then provide good answers

I think the analogy of the church being a hospital is pretty good. It encompasses a great deal of what we consider to be the role and purpose of our "gatherings".

As to the "Who" (I could of also used "Where" I guess), that is more difficult. I think "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail..." indicate that at least one church has the correct, or orthodox, doctrine. Moreover, if there are two seperate churches that are orthodox then I believe they are obligated to try to re-unify because they are both Christ's church and the division between them is scandalous.

Now, is it possible for a church to be outside of an orthodox communion and still be orthodox herself (ROCOR perhaps)? ROCOR is not in Eucharistic communion with the rest of Orthodoxy, but is not her faith still orthodox? Especially since they are so close to reunion. If ROCOR does indeed return will her parishes suddenly become legitamate again? Were her sacraments really ever not valid? Or is it possible that churches enter into Schism for reasons not directly related to the faith (Old-Calendarists perhaps)?

Ok, so here is my opinion...It seems very likely to me that regardless of whether it was always true historically, at this point in time the doctrines of Orthodox, Non -Chanceldonians, and Catholics are in fact reconcilable. If that is the case then they share essentailly the same Faith. This is quite possibly what Pope Benedict means when he says "Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are fundamentally the same Church." Thus, together they are Christ's church though divisions continue to exist between them. That does not mean they are different branches which function perfectly well autonomously. Rather the trunk itself has splinters which need to be removed to restore full communion between the three churches, the different expressions should be harmonized, and any "theolegumenom" which one side has adopted which turns out to be inaccurate should be discarded. One single, vibrant tradition should be restored even if it continues to be expressed a little differently (as has always been the case). In short, the Gates of Hell have not prevailed against an orthodox faith though the holders of that faith are still divided on other grounds including perhaps the right articulation of said Truth.

Protestants incidently, may still be part of this church through an imperfect communion (ie not Damned), even though their institutions are not part of the visible Church of Christ.

That may seem somewhat "soft" but I think it is a solution which holds to truth while acknowledging the many logical problems involved with proclaiming one communion the sole boundary of what consitutes Christ's visible Church on Earth.

Ok, please feel free to modify or rip to shreds above statements

It is simple.
We are the church, the people!! Even protestants gathering in His name are the church. Sure they aren't experiencing the grace of the Sacrements, but didn't Christ say, "Where two or three are gathered, I am there" Forgive my paraphrasing.

Thank you, Andrew, for giving me something to think about: especially making the distinction between the papacy as an expression of the fullness of the Church and the (only or main) expression of it. I was unaware that I was failing to make that distinction till you pointed it out to me. I genuinely thank you for helping me see something that I had overlooked before. And thank you for your patience in explaining it till I saw it. That --your patience-- is a real example of what the Church is all about.

-- John