Replies

“The idea that the Church is merely the “set of all believers” was unheard of until the 16th century. That should help us rightly interpret the passages in Scripture that speak of the Church.”

A, your references to +Ignatius of Antioch certainly ought to settle the question of what the early Church believed The Church is, at least from an historical perspective. As you point out, the notion that there is some sort of “invisible” Church is simply unknown until the Protestant Reformation, again at least from an historical perspective. One will search the writings of the Fathers and the acts of the Councils in vain for anything like an invisible Church concept.

I suspect that the idea arose after the reformers broke with the Latin Church which, at least then (and even into my lifetime) and for about 5 centuries before that, was quite adamant that there was no salvation outside of the Latin Church; indeed it taught that there was no salvation absent submission to the universal immediate jurisdiction of the Pope. In the East one doesn’t see this idea as firmly and universally accepted. In other words, among the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox there was not and is not any consensus that theosis/salvation is found only within the bounds of The Church. This is not to say that in the East we say that theosis is found outside The Church. We say simply that we know it is found within The Church, don’t know if it is found outside and can’t presume to limit the economy of salvation. For Orthodoxy, membership in The Church/theosis is not necessarily a closed system.

But the reformers were acting within the context of a Latin system and mindset which condemned to hell anyone who wasn’t “in” The Church, and the Latin Church at that. Since they were clearly not “in” and since being “in” was the sine qua non of salvation, they certainly had to come up with something and thus this idea of an invisible church came up. Apparently the reformers were as convinced as the Latins that membership in a “church”, if not The Church as the Latins would have it, was indeed necessary for salvation.

So the issue was and is where salvation is found. Where the reformers went off the rails, in my opinion, was in the thoroughly innovative idea of what constituted The Church. Interestingly, in the East, especially by the 7th century, but earlier too, one reads comments from members of The Church about bishops, priests, monks and laity who were members of hierarchial, ecclesial, eucharistic assemblies which were not part of The Church. These writers were quite clear that they did not accept that the eucharist, or any of the sacraments of these "ecclesial groups" was in any way valid or efficacious...but they never wrote that these people were ipso facto damned.

Bottom line, The Church, the Ecclesia, is a visible, hierarchial, Eucharistic institution within which we can be saved. There is no other "Church" or "church". To say otherwise is simply a 16th century innovation. To say with certitude however that theosis is NOT found outside the visible institution of the Ecclesia (let alone that it is only found in communion with the Pope of Rome) is simply itself outside the 2000 year old consensus patrum.

This is part one. Whether or not I'll finish addressing the rest, don't know. I type really slow, I'm working my way through a bunch of different sources & my stamina isn't always dependable anymore.

The idea that the Church is merely the set of all believers was unheard of until the 16th century. That should help us rightly interpret the passages in Scripture that speak of the Church.

From your perspective, it is innovation. I'm gonna move some of your text out of place.

Interestingly, in the East, especially by the 7th century, but earlier too, one reads comments from members of The Church about bishops, priests, monks and laity who were members of hierarchial, ecclesial, eucharistic assemblies which were not part of The Church. These writers were quite clear that they did not accept that the eucharist, or any of the sacraments of these "ecclesial groups" was in any way valid or efficacious...but they never wrote that these people were ipso facto damned.

From the perspective of these "outsiders", I'm sure they believed that they were the ones who got it correct. Whether or not any of them took the same position about the body as the Reformers is probably not knowable. Christ would know whether or not they were in His flock, kept in a different pen. If the Early Church Fathers had declared all members of these groups to be ipso facto damned, it would support innovation later adopted by the Church.

In the Great Schism I tend to lean toward the Orthodox position. I've wondered if my position has to do with personal experiences with a lot of Roman Catholics & a dearth of contact with Orthodox Christians. I also considered whether or not it had anything to do with my upbringing, where there might have been some anti-Rome teachings slipped into Sunday school & Catechism. I don't remember a thing said about Rome from either the pulpit or in Sunday school & Catechism taught me to see those who follow Rome to be my brothers in Christ. Personal experience taught me that many of Rome's children did not see me in the same way. Children do learn more from their parent's actions than by their parent's words, don't they?

All that said, when I said there was innovation by the Church, it was not only on the side of Rome. Either a see has autonomy over its portion of the flock or it does not. Is everyone required to be circumcised or not? The wrestling match over the actual structure of the Church's hierarchy makes the Catholic position about hierarchy interesting to those of us on the outside looking in. You tell us it is there, you're only working out the finer details of its flowchart and... a few other things. Meanwhile, a Lutheran Rite pops into the fold... kind of.