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

A gift from God for all humanity - is he!

-ray

Ray,

I agree. Bishop Timothy Kallistos Ware is one of the Enlighteners of the English speaking world!

Here is the pertinent quote from his book, The Orthodox Church (Penguin Books, New York, 1997, ISBN 0-14-014656-3, pages 307-308).

-- John

I wonder what the Acta say. The last time (2001) I reviewed the topic I noted:

It is not clear where this saying about the Eucharistic originated. Michael Plekon, ��Always Everyone and Always Together�; The Eucharistic Theology of Nicolas Afanasiev�s The Lord�s Supper Revisited�, St. Vlad. Theo. Quarterly 41 (1997), 145, points to Afanasiev. Paul McPartlan, The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue, T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1993 (xv), points to de Lubac, certainly to his originating (or reviving) the chiasm �The Eucharist makes the Church; the Church makes the Eucharist.� In his book Catholicism (1950), de Lubac also states the more comprehensive and balanced medieval dictum Sacramenta faciunt ecclesiam (37). Then he notes that the Eucharist is the central sacrament (38): �The sacrament in the highest sense of the word � sacramentum sacramentorum, quasi consummatio spiritualis vitae et omnium sacramentorum finis � the sacrament �which contains the whole mystery of our salvation�, the Eucharist, is also especially the sacrament of unity: sacramentum unitatis ecclesiasticae.� Also, Plekon points out the authoritative adoption of this Eucharistic dictum by the CCC, �1396; and he says (146-7; n.14) that it �permeates� Vatican II documents and BEM.

Dn. Anthony

ray--

I have to agree with you here. I've often thought it an amazing act of arrogance to assume that Christ gave the keys and left the rest up to human capriciousness. I do believe that the Holy Spirit is still alive and active, and tht this has probably been the reason that far more damgae has not been able to be done of the Church by the humans placed in charge of her.

BOB

Ray by whose authority do you say these thngs?
They are certainly not the mind of the Church.
Stephanos I

ray--

Our brother, John, (one of the sharper tools in the shed, unlike me) has a good answer to your questions. And the interesting part is that His Grace's point is the same point that the Vatican Council documents make: one just substitutes Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church. I rather like the Orthodox Church's approach in saying that we know where the Church is, but we are wary about saying where she is not. That is to say, there are individuals and/or groups that are very close to the Church and the Holy Spirit, Who blows where He wills and works where and with whom He wills, may certainly be active in that individual and/or group.

I submit that the Church is a bit more difficult to define than we have, in the past, thought. I like this little paragraph form the Catechism of the Catholic Church which sums up this idea:


I also like this one


ray,

These paragraphs lead me to the conclusion that while the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church, believes herself to be the visible manifestation of the Church established by Christ, they leave the door open to an idea of fluidity much like the early Church experienced. In paragraph 817, the mention of early rifts in the essential untiy of the Church are mentioned. So the two ideas of "gift"--something visible and somewhat stable--and "call"--a suggestion of ongoing striving, metanoia, and struggle--seem to suggest that the Church is more like us: we are called to "perfecting," as St. Gregory of Nyssa points out in his book, From Glory to Glory, not to perfection ( a static state).

Hence, we are called to struggle to find the way in which the Holy Spirit would have us treat each other in our time and space, leaving the vitriol of the past behind. This is not to say that doctrinal things might not become hot points. It is to say that on a personal level we need each other. In the face of a world that is becoming more and more nominal in its attachment to religion and that faces an external threat from a militant religious system at odds with it and a militant secular environment in which it must live (in Europe and North America), we have to say we need each other. We need each other's witness, prayers, and encouragement. That is not to say that sometimes it might seem strange to us because our points of reference spring from different ontological bases--as His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew has pointed out. But at a bare minimum we have all come to see that the Church is more than the visible boundaries of our own particular Churches.

I think of the Church of the East in the earliest times. Missionaries went from the Roman Empire to the Persian Empire. They didn't keep much ocntact, probably because they could not afford to be seen as some foreign entity--therefore a potential danger ot the politcal order. They were missionaries bent on proclaiming Christ to the ends of the earth. Were they out of the Church simply because they crossed a political border? I think not. And they were out of the consciousness of all the pentarchy within the Roman Empire.

So I'm willing to accept the particular teaching of my own sui juris Church and leave ambiguity be part of where the Church extends. Like the situation when I go for an eye exam: I'm not concerned about the blurry look--the doctor will clear it up before it's all over; in the Church the Good Lord will explain it all to me at some point in His own good time. In the meantime, it may be "none of my business" to know how He intends His Plan to work itself out for the salvation of us all.

In Christ,

BOB

ray--

I have to say that I don't know what either OLJC would say or what St. Paul would say. The reason being that the message that I have from either Person or person has been filtered through the particular Church that I belong to. I have also studied the same kinds of messages through the particular prism of the Orthodox Church. In each case the same essential message comes to us, but with different emphases. Both ascribe different conclusions to the message as it has been passed along. Both have had their prism conditioned by their historical paths and experiences. I don't think it is an "either/or" situation. But it is, thank God, not my final call. Sometimes it's comfortable to be able to say that this is the area for the Apostles of our day to determine.

Christ established the Eucharist in an upper room with eleven of His twelve Apostles after one left to betray Him. I don't really know how many, if any, other people were there. Between then and now a lot of time has passed and a lot has developed along the way.

In my opinion, we must also be comfortable with the range of opinions within each particular visible Church. There are those still locked in an exclusive mindset in each Church and they are not wrong; they bring a valuable insight in that this is not a call to finding a lowest common denominator to solving our various schisms. There are those who think that just because we are talking they have the right to approach the Mysteries in any Church or ecclesial community they wish and are miffed when they are rebuffed. Then there are those who are the vast majority and they constitute what I call "the clueless." They have little or no idea that anyone else exists except their own congregation--whether they belong to an Apostolic Church or an independent community of some sort. With this latter group, opinion ranges all over the place.

I enjoy the privilege of bein a member of this forum in that we have a culture wherein everyone is respected and listened to. I think that that is key. We have to be able to listen; we don't have to agree. But look at the gifts shared. We have a very able poster who shares portions of the Optina Elders on a regular basis and thousands of hits show that they are valuable. I understand his Church's strict stance and I find it refreshing when so many want to do away with any and all beliefs or statements that seem controversial--as if avoiding controversy were the sole reason for our dialogue in the hopes of reaching communion again. We have people who have found the Holy Spirit drawing them from one Church to another; we respect their consciences and pray for them.

I think we have to get used to the idea that communion is a messy thing because it involves human beings who integrate the same information in so many different ways. Notice the times when a particular set of words arouses a different response than the one hoped for. Even within a particular Church, the clergy will tell us that sometimes sermons on familiar topics will strike someone the wrong way and strong responses will result.

So, what is the Church? The best definition of what constitutes the Catholic Church--which we all profess in the Nicene Creed BTW--is "here comes everybody."

BOB

I'm one step behind you because I don't know what the Acta is.

Anyhow, it seems to me the church is the body of christ. So what actually constitutes the church to me would be the members who are joined mystically in that body through its sacraments, principally the Eucharist. So it makes sense to me - where there is the Eucharist, there is the church, because there is the body of Christ. There is nothing more real, full, true or whole than Christ and the Trinity.

Very good point AMM. These things are very true and correct.
But also as I said in another post somewhere; God' did not leave us guessing and in confusion. He created a historical Church, one founded upon the Apostles.
It seems that this question came up in the first few Centuries, when heresy began to be big problem.
Where is the Church of Jesus Christ? What is the Church of Jesus Christ? And again in the reformation.
Luther said that the Church was were the Word was rightly preached and the sacraments given. There the Church was.
But who is to decided what is rightly preached?
The Church's answer was, the Church is visible, it is a visible society which can trace itself to Apostolic foundation. There has been a succesion of bishops.
There has been a succession also of Apostolic teaching. There is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

St Vincent of Lerins famous dictum. How do we know what is Apostolic Teaching, That which was believed everywhere, by everyone, always.

Stephanos I
PS That is why both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have always looked upon novelties with suspicion.
While Catholicism has always believed that doctrine developes in furthering of understanding, the Orthodox have taken a more stagnant aprroach.

Certainly, and without the Antimins the Eucharist cannot be celebrated.

Excellent points both, and why Zizioulas (whether rightly or not) questions Afanasiev's approach. For Zizioulas the Church must be understood as centered around the Bishop: the Bishop is the sole head of the Eucharistic community that is the particular, catholic, church; it is he who presides at every Divine Liturgy in his church being present himself or through a presbyter.

Dn. Anthony

Forgot one thing - Halushki. Where there is Halushki, there is the....

Dear Bob...

Thank you.

Your local priest should force you to do sermons and not keep the good food from his flock. But maybe the Good Lord has decided to keep you safe and in peace - here with us.

There be lions and tigers out there.

-ray

I have never read of Zizioulas treating the subject of Haluski, but then again he is Greek. He has spoken at Halki but not on Haluski. Afanasiev may treat the subject -- no doubt he has done so existentially -- but I have not read him and, therefore, can't comment. I suspect we may hear something on the subject from a certain well-know Slav school of theology whose practitioners recently gathered to voice their accord concerning the topic of heaven link [youtube.com].

Dn. Anthony