www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Is the Bride of Christ being purified?

If the Bride of Christ is being purified for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb as St. John reflects, what terms should be used for said purification or becoming God by adoption?

Dan L

If I understand your question, then you are asking if the corporate body of Christ i.e. the mystical body of Christ is being purified to enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb, what term should be used?

Well there is a term called Theosis which basically means the call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection.

So if the mystical body of Christ or the corporate body of Christ is seeking to become holy and seek union with God, we could call the term:

Corporate Theosis

John, I am not sure any such thing exists, at least the Fathers don't seem to mention any such thing as you describe it.

Theosis is the very personal and direct communion between the person and God, the result of metanoia. It happens one on one, and one by one. It is not something that can be discussed in a "corporate" sense, but only on the level of the individual and their communion with the Savior.

Our post-Reformation/post Enlightenment society seems to direct we consider everything on the level of the "corporate", of the "majority", sometimes which becomes detrimental and moves away from what our holy Fathers such as St. John of the Ladder directed to their spiritual children, one soul at a time.

But truly, no person lives in a vacuum separated from the Mystical Body. Every soul pursuing deification enriches those around them when living according to the way of our Savior. This is not something predetermined in a "corporate" sense, or something that can be planned or discussed in a corporate sense, but is the building and creation, transformation and transfiguration of Christian community soul by soul. It happens one by one.

All of us should be striving for this and witness this to the larger community-this is nothing more than the Mystical Body, the Church, wanting to be with Her Bridegroom in the eternal embrace of the Savior's love, one person, one soul, one family, one at a time. Let's start with our own families united in the faith, united in the Mystical Body in the ultimate sign of communion, the Eucharist, the very Body and Blood of our Savior which unites us in that deepest sense, and go from there.

This is quite so and very nicely done.

There is nothing in Catholic teaching that allows for anything like "corporate sin" or "corporate sanctity"...Those concepts do not make sense in Catholic teaching at any time, including the present. In fact, when pushed into praxis the kinds of sacramental behaviors, such as corporate absolution for sins, are actually forbidden by the Church.

Theosis is a very unique and personal union between each adopted child of the Father and the Indwelling Trinity.

Blessings....Mary

Diak,

I'm really not interested in Enlightenment philosophy. What does interest me is the identification of the Bride. If She is not the Church who is She?

Rev. 19:

6Then I heard what sounded like a great multitude, like the roar of rushing waters and like loud peals of thunder, shouting:
"Hallelujah!
For our Lord God Almighty reigns.
7Let us rejoice and be glad
and give him glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
8Fine linen, bright and clean,
was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

9Then the angel said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!' " And he added, "These are the true words of God."

Also see Ephesians 5:

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

CDL

Noble Diak,

I think we need to make some clarifications. Dan can speak for himself, of course, but there are two things being mixed here, I think:

1) Individual theosis, the sanctification of the individual human person, and his standing before the Lord in judgment. That is ultimately an individual matter.

2) "Corporate theosis", which may be a clumsy term, but is abundantly taught in the scriptures and in the writings of the fathers. Not under that name, of course. It is perhaps a neologism, but the spiritual status of the whole state of the people of God has grave consequences for the development of anyone's individual journey to God. Woe to him who causes any of these little ones to sin! What is that but a reference to the need for societal regeneration in Christ, so that the little ones aren't led to sin? What of the very word for "church," "ekklesia," which means "the called-together?" What of the mystical body of Christ? What of "feed my lambs, tend my sheep?" What of the clear understanding, even in the eremetical life, that one is still part of the Church, liable to be called back at need, as St. Anthony was? What of the modern social teaching of the Church on the common good and on solidarity?

I could go on, but you get my point. Ultimately it is the individual who approaches God, but he doesn't do it alone. How would he even know of God if he did it alone? Every believer comes to God through the Church, and therefore in order to facilitate individual theoses, the entire Church needs to be reconformed to the image of Christ.

By the way, I think you misread the Reformation. If anything, it led to more focus on the sinner in his solitariness before God, and less focus on his status as a member of a Church. Some reformers would even deny the need for a visible church. All one needs is one's own soul and a bible!

Best,
Karl

Venerable Karl and Noble Diak and Most Honorable John,

I agree here with Karl's comments. I agree that the effects of the Reformation and magnified by the Enlightenment are not to enhance the corporate nature of the Church but to destroy it.

I confess the phrase "corporate theosis" is a neologism. I take full credit/blame for it though I do think the meaning is clear. Hence, I appreciate John's comments as well.

For a time I shall leave this discussion as well.

Dan L

Thank you

The phrase "corporate theosis" may well be coined here for the first in your mouth, however the idea is an old one, a Lutheran one and one that did drive the reformed and enlightened to press the idea of both an Invisible Body or Church, AND also of corporate guilt and consequences for sin as well as the elect or a kind of corporate sanctity.

Your ideas here, kind sir, are hardly new.

Blessings....Mary

Mr. Gibson,

Catholic teaching is that the Church IS the Body of Christ and to suggest that the Body of Christ is in need of 'becoming holy and seeking union with God' while at the same time BEING God...strikes me as a rather silly proposition, and over time has led to heretical and schismatic behaviors.

Diak has the right of it. Catholic teaching is and always has been that we go to the Father, through the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit and we go one small soul at a time.

Blessings....Mary

Well . . . there is the idea of the Ecclesia semper Reformanda!

Incognitus

Right-o!! I am very familiar with the
Church of What's Happin' Now!

Mary

Karl, thank you in return for your well written response and the clarifications of which I am in general agreement.

I think my difficulties are with what indeed is a clumsy term at best, and terminology that could underlie a certain current of thought.

I get a bit cautious when speaking in any terms of a "corporate theosis". This has implications of a corporate salvation as well, intended or unintended. Origin got himself into a lot of trouble when thinking and speaking in terms basically as you describe, "corporate" theosis accompanied by corporate salvation - the roots of apokatastisis .

Then it would appear you are also not interested in much of what Pope John Paul II of blessed memory spent his time doing, i.e. teaching about the unfortunate effects of precisely this philosophy. We cannot rely on sola scriptura as Catholics. While it is certainly a cornerstone of the Tradition, we have to see what there is to see, and look carefully at the full corpus of what our Church Fathers have passed on.

Indeed Karl, and I acknoweldged something close to this in my post I think perhaps "theosis" as a term and concept is best left to the intimate communion of the single soul with God, and not extended into areas that may precipitate a lack of clarity or meaning.

I do stand by the effects of the Reformation and Enlightenment as to the corporate implications, and should clarify those in this way. The concepts of corporate sin and redemption are replete in the corporate teachings of the many "once saved, always saved" churches when literally thousands in one evening can be eternally saved and in remain in that misunderstood intimate "communion" without ever fearing anything or never having to question salvation for eternity. That was my point regarding the "corporate" implications of the Reformation et. al., which has admittedly a complex historical and philisophical mixture.

Diak,

I'm not interested in promoting Enlightenment philosophy any more than Pope John Paul II was. I think you knew that. Let's get past this, ok? Let's get past the nonsense about sola scriptura as well.

Please, would you comment on the passages that form a central teaching of faith that I listed? How does the Church understand the teachings of the Marriage Supper of the Lamb with His Bride the Church?

Dan Lauffer

Do you really expect persons to have civil discussions with this type of introductory?

And after you made this comment why should one respond seriously to your questions? I guess your time away was quite short and I will attempt to respond.

I don't know you beyond this forum at all and I do not try to engage in overt presuppositions regarding what I know or don't know about someone's religious beliefs.

Diak,

You brought up the opinion that I didn't care about what Pope John Paul II was concerned with regarding Enlightenment philosophy. I said that I'm opposed to it. I'm immersed in Patristics not simply because I love the ancient ways but because I believe they represent a Chrisianity much closer to the truth than does Enlightenment philosophy. I don't know what you are suggesting. I don't know why you should be upset with what I've written but I would like to read your comments on the passages I suggested.

Is the Church the Bride of Christ? I'm guessing that we agree that it is.

Is Christ preparing us for the Marriage Supper of the Lamb? I can't tell from your posts.

Why would you find my questions irritating?

Dan L