Posted on 01/29/2006 5:25:55 AM PST by NYer
Dear Kolokotronis,
Are not all who are saved, saved through Jesus Christ? By His Body? Do not the graces by which we are saved flow to us through the suffering He took upon Him in His Body?
Thus, are not all who are saved incorporated into and saved through the Church, which is His Body? Even if they are not formally incorporated into the Church, and known by us in this life to be so incorporated, they are, nonetheless, somehow mysteriously incorporated into the Church, no?
sitetest
This is probably the fundamental difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Protestants believe that those who ultimately are saved (which is roughly equivalent to theosis, but theosis seems to be a more elegant term) are by definition members of the Church, they therefore believe that the bounds of the Church are not well-defined.
In the end, however, we come to the same conclusion - it doesn't matter which Church's rolls your name is inscribed in; rather, it is theosis.
(As an aside, I had to look up theosis. Interesting concept. I should examine it further.)
Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, referring to the Church of God well into the first century. See the first line.
Another example The first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians...2nd line.
There are many other examples of the Early Church Fathers writing "To The Church of God, from the Church of God," etc.etc.
Excellent summary, in my view.
"An apostolic church is more readily identifiable by being in spiritual unity with the apostles than in temporal descent from the apostles."
Until the advent of Protestantism, the ONLY bishops recognized as being apostolic were those who could trace their ordinal lineage back to the apostles. The Church took, and takes, great care to maintain the lists (the diptyches) of apostolic succession. The concept of "spiritual unity" with the apostles is distinctly Protestant and, by comparison, quite new.
For Orthodox Christians, the definition of The Church set out by +Ignatius of Antioch is the correct one. I am unaware of any Protestant group which fits that definition, though I understand the Anglicans might be able to make the claim. It is for that reason that +BXVI could write that Portestant churches are strictly speaking churches but rather ecclesial assemblies. From an Orthodox perspective, however, that does not of necessity mean that the potential for theosis is missing in Protestants.
Oh, I know. My point was that the word "catholic" shows up in the writings of The Church just about as early as one can get.
I'm not catholic, so obviously I agree with your post #94.
The church is where you find it; as the saying goes, God knows who are his own.
Among catholics, as among any subdivision of the church, you will find people who do not know God, and you will find people who are deeply in love with him. And others all along the spectrum between the two. That is as much true of the leadership as the rank and file, that is true of catholic and evangelical churches alike.
Pope John Paul 2 always struck me as deeply Christian; whether you judge that to be because or in spite of his catholic roots depends on your point of view; he was nevertheless in my view a great man and a Christian.
I was worried who would be chosen to replace him, and I have since been pleased that the man who now fills his shoes is another very worthy man, to all appearances deeply Christian himself, and with perhaps even a more profound understanding than his predecessor. It remains to be seen what history will throw at him, and how well he will navigate his ship in the years ahead. But I am pleased with what I see so far.
I have to say this; I could never be a catholic, there are too many things in the official church, in its history, in its organization, in any number of things which were I to convert I would have to accept. But I have always loved catholics, the people themselves, and the "unseen" church that exists alongside the visible one. I have, over the years, often found myself in catholic churches around the world, worshipping there, completely at home.
But that is always the way it is with any human congregation. There is always the flawed visible church, that is hard to live with and hard to defend, and then there is the unseen church that is the real one. You can always spot the people who are members of the latter, I believe. Certainly God knows who they are.
Post #103 should say "well into the 2nd century"...with regards to Polycarp.
You probably know that to an evangelical heart, that has a nice ring to it.
I appreciate that....and my point was (originally) that the "Church of God" predates the "Catholic Church" by many years.... and was still being referred to as that... well into the early history of the Church.
marron: You probably know that to an evangelical heart, that has a nice ring to it.
I grew up in a group that simply identified itself as an "assembly" because it didn't like the baggage carried by the term "church."
"Are not all who are saved, saved through Jesus Christ? By His Body? Do not the graces by which we are saved flow to us through the suffering He took upon Him in His Body?"
All who attain theosis attain that because Christ destroyed the power of death by breaking down the gates of hades. Christ is the New Adam, restoring to us the potential for theosis which Adam had and lost. And this occurred for all of creation, not just for those of us in The Church. Those of us in The Church are saved within Liturgical and Eucaristic Community which is The Church. Personally I believe there is danger in using the term the "Mystical Body of Christ" and "The Church" interchangably. The Fathers I believe are quite clear that even in a state of complete theosis, we do not share in the divine essence of our Triune God, but only in the uncreated energies of God. To believe that as members of The Church we are ipso facto part of the Body of Christ goes too far.
"Even if they are not formally incorporated into the Church, and known by us in this life to be so incorporated, they are, nonetheless, somehow mysteriously incorporated into the Church, no?"
I don't agree. Such a concept limits God's graces to people within The Church and The Fathers are quite clear that God's uncreated grace falls on all creation. What happens to the people it falls on is, of course, quite another matter.
Correct me if I am wrong - this whole theosis concept is brand new to me - but the Eastern understanding of theosis is that men become in perfect communion with God (though never to the point of ontological confusion). Am I understanding this correctly?
" You probably know that to an evangelical heart, that has a nice ring to it."
So I have been told! :)
" Correct me if I am wrong - this whole theosis concept is brand new to me - but the Eastern understanding of theosis is that men become in perfect communion with God (though never to the point of ontological confusion). Am I understanding this correctly?"
Pretty much, yes.
I swear that there will be 40 million idiots walk through the gates of heaven just to exclaim "why is this place so crowded?"
For what it's worth, xzins, I don't think Pope Benedict thinks that either. Please take the time to read this amazingly powerful Encyclical: It is addressed to Christians, not just to Catholics. And then, if you have the time, read Aiden Nichols' The Thought of Benedict XVI, and draw your own conclusions.
This Pope is extraordinarily ecumenical in his thinking. He does not believe that the Reformed Church in any of its departments is "outside" Christianity or salvation in Christ. He takes the thought of Calvin and Luther very, very seriously, and admires these men as great spiritual thinkers.
Go look for yourself, if you have the time and interest, and see if you disagree with my assessment!
Think about these comments by +Gregory Palamas:
"The grace of divinization thus transcends nature, virtue and knowledge, and `all these things are inferior to it.'[+Maximos] Every virtue and imitation of God on our part indeed prepares those who practice them for divine union, but the mysterious union itself is effected by grace. It is through grace that `the entire Divinity comes to dwell in fullness in those deemed worth,' and all the saints in their entire being dwell in God, receiving God in His wholeness, and gaining no other reward for their ascent to Him than God Himself."
And:
"We unite ourselves to Him, in so far as this is possible, by participating in the godlike virtues and by entering into communion with Him through prayer and praise. Because the virtues are similitudes of God, to participate in them puts us in a fit state to receive the Deity, yet it does not actually unite us to Him. But prayer through its sacral and hieratic power actualizes our ascent to and union with the Deity, for it is a bond between noetic creatures and their Creator."
Your response is yet one more justification for the failure of 'sola scriptura'. You quote the Acts of the Apostles yet leave out the instructions of Christ to his disciples:
You wouldn't have a link to the encyclical, would you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.