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.
“From the perspective of these “outsiders”, I’m sure they believed that they were the ones who got it correct.”
I don’t doubt that for a minute!
“Whether or not any of them took the same position about the body as the Reformers is probably not knowable.”
It is, actually. Virtually all of them believed that their group was The Church. If one looks at their structure, these groups were in virtually every observable institutional aspect, just like The Church. But their theologies were off from that of The Church.
“At any rate, every one of them claimed to be part of The Church Christ would know whether or not they were in His flock, kept in a different pen.”
Not really. They claimed they were “The Church”, not part of it or part of some amorphous invisible church.”
“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.”
Yes, had they said that, it would have supported the later Latin position, but the consensus patrum didn’t.
“Either a see has autonomy over its portion of the flock or it does not.”
Now you see, that’s a very Orthodox point of view, in broad sweeps. Pre-supposing bishops in the Apostolic Succession, correct teaching (which is to say non-heretical) and valid sacraments, the Latins would argue that a local diocese does not have autonomy of any sort as all dioceses are subject to the immediate jurisdiction of the Pope. The fullness of The Church can thus only be found in those dioceses collectively which are in communion with Rome. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, takes the position that the fullness of The Church is found in a single diocese.”
“Meanwhile, a Lutheran Rite pops into the fold... kind of.”
Ah, that’s an excellent example of what I am talking about; hierarchial, liturgical, centered on a eucharist and yet not looked upon as “The Church”, as a general proposition at least, by either Orthodoxy or the Latin Church. The consequences of that view for the theosis of Lutherans, however, are very different, a “who knows?” with a shrug from Orthodoxy and, traditionally, damnation from Rome.
By the way, I find some Lutherans amazingly Orthodox in both praxis and mindset. really a shame they didn’t join up with Orthodoxy back in the day.
I tend to go with it being a mystery to men instead of "invisible".
One will search the writings of the Fathers and the acts of the Councils in vain for anything like an invisible Church concept.
I see more support for it in Scripture than the structure which Rome built upon the foundation. Don't bother with a two wrongs not making a right scold. I'm impervious to it. LOL We're talking about people who discovered their feet had somehow managed to land on both sides of the Great Schism, with a fervent desire to do God's will, unwanted by both sides. IMO, when they made the cut, through necessity, they didn't cut deep enough. They didn't address entanglement between church & state.
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.
Part of me wonders if any of the Patriarchs sent a letter to Rome, along the lines of, "we tried to tell you"... all wrapped up in diplospeak, of course.
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.
I agree.
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.
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.
You & I will have to agree to disagree on the stickier points.