This thread from Faith and Worship in December 2002--Page 169 in the archives might provide some answers that the folks here have come up with. I've tried to link this today, but the software doesn't seem to want to work. The title of the thread was The Eucharist: Source of Unity in the Church.
When does it end? Are Mormons part of the Church? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarians? Scientologists? You see, the branch theory is extremely problematic.
When an Orthodox Priest was talking with some Alaskan Protestant missionaries, he asked these men about Apostolic Succession. They had not studied the "laying on of hands" in the Scriptures and did not understand that the Mystery of Holy Orders is biblical. Through this dialog, these men ultimately became Orthodox Christians.
Members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are those who continue to believe and preach the unchanging doctrine one delivered by the Christ to the Apostles. This holy faith continues today though Apostolic succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
This idea that the Eucharist is what brings about unity and communion of the faithful brings about some interesting things to consider. Since the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, CoE Churches all have a valid Eucharist (from a Catholic perspective) what does that mean about unity?
In celebrating the Eucharist, whenever we celebrate the Eucharist, we offer the one, same, and only Eucharist, and are thereby de facto united in it, in Him, in the Lord. An agreement on theological issues -- and these are important and should not be simply left unresolved -- prevents the formal acknowledgment and realization of that existential, intrinsic, unity.
Originally Posted by East and West
There is only one Body of Christ and we all partake of it in Holy Communion.
Yes, we partake of the same -- one -- body and blood of Christ but each only in our separate communities, as reception of Communion is properly held as the ultimate sign, expression and experience of communion. But as I read Zizioulas, one's functional presence in the eucharistic gathering -- at Divine Liturgy, Mass, Holy Qurbana etc.-- is already participation: even those who do not receive the Eucharist in communion still attend, participate, have celebrated the liturgy. And this is proper for ANY who are baptized: their proper place is in the actualization of the eucharistic community that is the "epi to auto," the gathering to celebrate the Eucharist; and that gathering as such is Church.
It should be noted that Met. John is critical of a "grass roots" approach, such as that of Fr. Nicholas Afanasiev's, to eucharistic ecclesiology; he definitely and rightly maintains that a parish in and of itself is not properly understood as a Church. I believe, however, that one must say that the parish, in celebrating the Eucharist, is a manifestation of the Church and is properly, in that instance, understood as Church.
When does it end? Are Mormons part of the Church? Jehovah's Witnesses? Unitarians? Scientologists?
Quote
Members of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church are those who continue to believe and preach the unchanging doctrine one delivered by the Christ to the Apostles. This holy faith continues today though Apostolic succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I disagree with both of you. Christianity is a relationship with Jesus Christ. It is not membership in a particular group.
Some know Jesus explicitly because they are official members of the various churches. Others do not know Jesus by Name, but they know Him very well in fact by how they live their lives: in self-control and in loving compassion for the neighbor. They are the ones who will be very surprised, on the Day of Judgement, to see that it was Jesus whom they served all their lives. "Lord? When did we find You hungry and give You something to eat? . . . " These are the ones I think that Jesus referred to when He said "Whatsoever you did to the least of My brothers, that you did unto Me." Matthew 25:40
And others claim to know Him, but they really don't or they reject Him. Of them, Jesus said: "Whatsoever you refused to the least of these, that you refused unto Me." Matthew 25:45 They are the sinners, of whom I am the first.
On the Day of Judgement, there will be surprises.
In sum, I think the Church consists of Christ and all who are united to Him: not just by what we say but especially how we live.
This thread from Faith and Worship in December 2002--Page 169 in the archives might provide some answers that the folks here have come up with. I've tried to link this today, but the software doesn't seem to want to work. The title of the thread was The Eucharist: Source of Unity in the Church.
It is Certain that the Most Holy Eucharist is the source and font of the life of the Church. However if we leave it at that, then everyone, who celebrates a eucharist is the Church. We have to clarify what that means. Stephanos I
I don't mean to get away from the Eucharist, nor from the Church which Christ established. I merely want to express that the Church must be cosmic and encompassing all of good will, in a mystical sense; otherwise what Saul encountered on the road to Damscus was a phantom. What I am poorly trying to say is that the Church is in institution, but it is more than just an institution.
-- John
Last edited by harmon3110; 02/15/0805:01 PM. Reason: trying to clarify myself
If all of Fr. Afanasiev's ecclesiological research and interpretation could be summed up it would be the line that has now become familiar: The Church makes the Eucharist, the Eucharist makes the Church. Now, years after Vatican II's dogmatic constition on the Church, Lumen gentium in which Afanasievв's vision was expressed (credit to him given in the Conciliar Acta) we take for granted the eucharistic nature of the Church and the ecclesial nature of the Eucharist, but previously both the Eastern and Western churches saw things otherwise.6 More often the Church was the canons, the hierarchical structure, the formal ecclesiastical organization, the historical and social institution. More often it was the question of who was in charge, who could do or not do this action. It was a matter of rules, protocols, rubrics, these in turn dependent upon the status of hierarch, cleric or layperson in a complex internal social structure. The return-to-the-sources on the part of so many scholars who were Afanasiev's contemporaries was to both the mind and the practice of the Church of the Fathers. The reform here was both restoration of tradition and since that tradition was living, an authentic renewal as well. The way forward was back to the scriptures, the liturgy and its texts, to the lived experience of the Church as a community that prayed and served God and the neighbor.
I don't really understand/agree the idea that wherever the Eucharist is, there is the Church, whole and entire.
There are certainly elements of the Church there (Apostolic Succession, which brings a valid Eucharist), but the Church is definitely not whole and entire in communities who may be schismatic or heretical but retain the Eucharist.
There is no unity by them taking it. The unity consists of souls in the friendship of God partaking of His Body and Blood.
Just as there is one baptism, does that mean that Protestants are Catholics? No. There are elements there that are properly the Church's, but that doesn't make them part of the Church.
Logos, I agree with you. Like I said, I don't subscribe to the Branch theory. However, if, as theology seems to suggest, the Eucharist is the cause of the unity of the Church, what does that say about those who are not in prefect communion with us but recieve our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? I think that is a theological problem that needs to be discussed. Or, prehaps the time I have spent in my Ruthenian Parish is causing me to think with a more Eastern mindset and I need to balance that with my Latin way of thinking. The Church has a juridical aspect to it as well; one is required to remain in communion with the Vicar of Christ to remain in the bounds of the Church. It has to be both and, not either or I suppose. OH no!!! As a Latin who attends a Byzantine Church I may be having a theological identity crisis!!! LOL. They told me this would happen.
And I do agree that the Eucharist is the source of unity in the life of our Church, because Christ is our light and life. Unfortunately, even though we put on Christ in Holy Baptism, many of us soil our Baptismal gowns and receive Holy Communion inattentively and without adequate preparation.
That reminds me of the story of St. Matrona the blind who noticed that even though her mother was present in church, she was not present because she had not put aside her worldly cares, and even though her dad was not physically present in church, he was present spiritually because he was attentive in his prayers at home.
May we all be attentive and in the presence of Christ when we fall asleep in the Lord.
Lord help us to pray.
Originally Posted by East and West
Logos, I agree with you. Like I said, I don't subscribe to the Branch theory. However, if, as theology seems to suggest, the Eucharist is the cause of the unity of the Church, what does that say about those who are not in prefect communion with us but recieve our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament? I think that is a theological problem that needs to be discussed. Or, prehaps the time I have spent in my Ruthenian Parish is causing me to think with a more Eastern mindset and I need to balance that with my Latin way of thinking. The Church has a juridical aspect to it as well; one is required to remain in communion with the Vicar of Christ to remain in the bounds of the Church. It has to be both and, not either or I suppose. OH no!!! As a Latin who attends a Byzantine Church I may be having a theological identity crisis!!! LOL. They told me this would happen.
I wrote on the thread I was trying to access but cannot without paging all the way back:
At some profound level, when any one of us approaches the Lord in the Liturgy to receive His Most Holy Body and Life-Giving Precious Blood, we are immediately and simultaneously present with Him at the Last Supper, at the Crucifixion on Golgotha, at the empty Tomb with Mary when we encounter Him with her, at the Ascension with the Apostles, and somehow--by anticipation?--already participating in welcoming Him back as part of His Glorious Second Coming. For me the sharing of the Eucharist is so profound and intense that sometimes I find myself all but overwhelmed. I believe that we are drawn into the eternal life of grace life right here and now that we hope to live forever--we have one foot in this life and one foot already in eternity, if you will permit me that, when we commune.
Now the Holy Trinity cannot be divided. I believe that we can all agree on that. I have come to a point where I see somewhat in a fuzzy fashion that all believers and their communities that have maintained the Apostolic succession, have preserved the faith that they have received, and live that faith out within the Liturgy as they have received it have somehow entered that same life of grace that I have.
I don't know and don't pretend to know how the many divisions we have, whether administrative or theological, enter here. But somehow, have faced this rather profound understanding that at some level that God alone can unravel and fully explain there is a communion--a common union--that we share simply because Christ cannot be divided as we sadly have been. I also understand that this does not paper over anything that has been discussed in this forum by the believers who care enough to wrestle with this painful area of Christian life.
But somehow, again God knows the how, the why, and the wherefore, when I participate in Christ and His Holy Body and Blood, each of the Orthodox and Catholic Christians, whether Eastern or Western, who have lived, live now, or ever will live, is united to me in Christ because His Mystery, that we participate in liturgically, is greater than all our expressions or experiences of it put together.
This is not religious indifferentism. This is an attempt to understand this mystery at a level deeper than we as human beings often get. It implies that the borders of the Church are not as sharp as they have been defined in the past and that this is not a retreat on the claims of the Church but are an admission that the Holy Spirit has drawn us into a deeper understanding of the Truth of the Church--the Truth that is Christ Himself.
"Subsistit" as a Latin verb was chosen in the Vtican II documents for this very reason, as the commentary of the first edition fo the documents of Vatican II explains. The Council did not use "est" the verb "to be" since it is a statement of equality that would rule out the idea that others may be in communion with the Catholic Church, though as the documents define in an imperfect way. This former verb opens the door to a dialogue with persons not in formal, administrative communion and recognizes that valid mysteries as the Latin Church understands them are active and present outside of our visible and administrative communion.
Our former Holy Father, John Paul II, emphasized this truth time and again. He even went so far as to celebrate the Latin Liturgy on the altar at the Mother Church of the Armenian Orthodox Church during a visit to Armenia. Time and again he reached out to his brothers in the episcopate who are not in formal communion and continued to ask pardon for the way that the Catholic Church has treated those who are our brothers in the Faith by Baptism. BTW, it is Baptism that makes all of us brothers and sisters in Christ and our Vatican II documents spell this out with no equivocation. Though we do not formally share the Eucharist we are already one on that very basic level. It is in pondering the Mystery of the Eucharist that we are called to see deeper than the administrative structures because in the serving of the Divine Liturgy/the Divine Saving Action of Christ that administrative areas melt away. We are in the unity of the Trinity and there is no way that we imperfect human beings can divide the Creator Who has established this way for us to be at one with Him.
I can not help but to agree with your thoughts here.
One problem in discussing 'what is the church' is the slippery word - church.
It has several different meanings in use. It can mean a building, it can mean the people inside the building, it can mean an institution, it can mean any particular church of the composite of all churches, plus it can mean Jesus himself (upon this rock I will build my self), etc..
I suggest that all these variations are called 'church' due to an essential meaning .. and that essential meaning is what has to be recognized.
I would further propose that the foundational meaning which we should recognize and use - is to be found in how Jesus himself used the term. And I would propose that Paul ... most likely uses the term in the same way that Christ did.
I would ask you Bob .. to speak to us something of how you might think that Jesus and Paul used the term.
Another aspect I noticed that I will also call 'slippery' is what I call (to myself) false reverse logic. What I mean by that is that we think we understand some statement in the gospels - and we automatically make new assumptions from it by thinking the reverse must also be true. I see this mistake as fundamental to much of our ideas of exclusiveness.
For example .. when Jesus said to Peter "here are the keys" (paraphrased of course) .. we see this as exclusive to Peter - yet further in the gospels Jesus says to all other apostles "Here are the keys" and also gives 'the keys' to them. No once - in the gospels or ACTS do we hear Jesus say to Paul "Here are the keys" but yet who would be so bold as to say that Paul did not also receive "the keys" that were given to all other apostles.
Further - while it is true that Jesus promises salvation within his church - we assume (by reverse logic) that there is no salvation outside the church (for anyone not holding our particular doctrines). We assume that all ... outside church membership ... are in error and truth is exclusive to us alone. We expand what Jesus said and take it to a place that Jesus himself was not willing to go. I submit that Jesus considered it non of our business regarding how he might deal out grace to people outside our particular church.
While everyone may not agree with my particular examples .. I think some get the idea. Jesus said something ... and we run with it assuming all kinds of applications that Jesus himself did not make.
So I am asking your opinion Bob ... when the further assumptions are stripped away - what is it that you think Jesus had in mind when he spoke the word we translate as 'church'??
But I did reread parts of Bishop Kallistos Ware's book, "The Orthodox Church" last night trying to find some way to make sense of all this.
And he made a useful distinction: the visible side of the church and the invisible side of the church. The visible side to the Church is the Orthodox Church. But the invisible side of Orthodox Church --known but to God-- may be much larger. The former enables belief in apostolicity, etc., and the latter allows belief in the redemption of all the good people who don't formally or visibly belong to the Orthodox Church.
An idea that I found worthy. Peace, brother.
-- John
Last edited by harmon3110; 02/16/0811:49 AM. Reason: clarity / typos
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
