The Church would have been better off without the Reformation.

[civilwarbuff]

We don't get to set terms for being Christ's body.

I am not willing to let wcc set the terms either....

 

[hedrick]

I am not willing to let wcc set the terms either....

I never mentioned the WCC. The church is only invisible if we refuse to see it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I never mentioned the WCC. From my point of view our unity is in Christ. It's already there. We need to recognize it. The church is only invisible if we refuse to see it.

Sorry, thought you meant wcc as the unifier since PC is pretty much joined at the hip with them. So whose view of unity are you going to use..RCC, PC, lutheran, EO, OO, UMC, non-denom....? Goodluck herding all those cats.

 

[hedrick]

Sorry, thought you meant wcc as the unifier since PC is pretty much joined at the hip with them. So whose view of unity are you going to use..RCC, PC, lutheran, EO, OO, UMC, non-denom....? Goodluck herding all those cats.

The mainline churches, at least, recognize other Christian churches as parts of the body of Christ. Of course I’d love to see all other Christians as part of the PCUSA, but I don’t see that as a requirement for membership in the body of Christ.

Discussions in places like this seem to be out of tune with the way Christians regard each other in the real world. The PCUSA and the Roman Catholic Church have an agreement on baptism where each recognize the other as a fellow church of Christ. That's certainly not the only example.

As far as I can see, there is already one Church. There are things we could do to improve the visible unity, such as recognizing each others’ sacraments, but as I’m sure you know, discussions are ongoing. Largely the important ones don’t seem to be at the WCC, but in bilateral discussions. (However some of the documents refer to discussions at the WCC as setting up the background.) The mainline churches (which include many of those you mention) are already doing pretty well with that. EO and OO seem to be making progress. I think the most difficult problem is going to be Catholic / Protestant dialog. But even without that kind of official recognition, on a practical level everyone I know in real life treats all of those churches as different visible parts of one Church of Christ.

 

[prodromos]

In the case of Roman Catholics, reunion simply hinges on whether or not we can agree on certain points relating to polity and a few minor theological and ecclesiological matters

It is usually only Catholics who dismiss our differences as minor. Most Orthodox would consider them to be quite significant. HH Bartholomew, for example, described Orthodox and Catholic as being ontologically different in his address to Georgetown University.

 

[Wgw]

It is usually only Catholics who dismiss our differences as minor. Most Orthodox would consider them to be quite significant. HH Bartholomew, for example, described Orthodox and Catholic as being ontologically different in his address to Georgetown University.

Well there is an ontological distinction, however it is not on a par with those that separate the Orthodox from, say Calvinism.

 

[Wgw]

The mainline churches, at least, recognize other Christian churches as parts of the body of Christ. Of course I’d love to see all other Christians as part of the PCUSA, but I don’t see that as a requirement for membership in the body of Christ.

Discussions in places like this seem to be out of tune with the way Christians regard each other in the real world. The PCUSA and the Roman Catholic Church have an agreement on baptism where each recognize the other as a fellow church of Christ. That's certainly not the only example.

As far as I can see, there is already one Church. There are things we could do to improve the visible unity, such as recognizing each others’ sacraments, but as I’m sure you know, discussions are ongoing. Largely the important ones don’t seem to be at the WCC, but in bilateral discussions. (However some of the documents refer to discussions at the WCC as setting up the background.) The mainline churches (which include many of those you mention) are already doing pretty well with that. EO and OO seem to be making progress. I think the most difficult problem is going to be Catholic / Protestant dialog. But even without that kind of official recognition, on a practical level everyone I know in real life treats all of those churches as different visible parts of one Church of Christ.

The Orthodox categorically reject Invisble Church ecclesiology. This does not mean we regard Calvinists as without hope of salvation, however, there can be no Eucharistic communion with them. Since the time the Orthodox joined the WCC, no leaders of other WCC members have been allowed to partake of the Orthodox Eucharist, and the Orthodox have avoided all Eucharistic concelebration.

In fact some Orthodox jurisdictions like the Church of Georgia have withdrawn due to concerns over a lack of proper respect for Orthodox ecclesiology shown by the Protestant members. I myself am of the opinion that the WCC intentionally sabotaged EO-OO reconciliation around 1970 in a bid to challenge Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[hedrick]

The Orthodox categorically reject Invisble Church ecclesiology.

Invisible church? The Church is certainly visible.

 

[Wgw]

Invisible church? The Church is certainly visible.

This just demonstrates the fundamental difference in ecclesiology. For the Orthodox,the Church must posess Eucharistic communion, and be united dogmatically. mThis is essentially the RC position as well; the Great Schism can be reduced to some degree to a case of a disagreement between members of the hierarchy over questions relating to ecclesiastical administration.

 

[hedrick]

This just demonstrates the fundamental difference in ecclesiology. For the Orthodox,the Church must posess Eucharistic communion, and be united dogmatically. mThis is essentially the RC position as well; the Great Schism can be reduced to some degree to a case of a disagreement between members of the hierarchy over questions relating to ecclesiastical administration.

Yup. And that's the main reason Christ's request for unity has only partly been answered.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yup. And that's the main reason Christ's request for unity has only partly been answered.

It was complied with for centuries. Protestants are the ones who ruptured it.

 

[Wgw]

Yup. And that's the main reason Christ's request for unity has only partly been answered.

I think that is an unfair remark in that unity without dogmatic correctness would be diabolical. Because Christ is the Truth we must adhere first to that standard. On additon, the words of Christ refarding unity should not be regarded as primarily ecclesiological in nature; I think they relate more to soteriology and are an expression of the Orthodox concept of theosis.

There can never be unity between the Orthodox and your denomination as it now exists, because you reject this model. Nestorianism and iconoclasm, and the rejection of Orthodox sacramental theology, and Calvinistic monergism, and even seemingly minor details such as the rejection of the episcopate and the acceptance of voluntary cremation are inherently a rejection of the human-divine synergy that our Lord was referring to, which Ss. Irenaeus, Athanasius and others describe as essential to the process of salvation.

 

[hedrick]

No thanks. I'm not interested in refighting all of those battles. I don't think it saves the cause of Christ. The questions you raise are important, but not in this context, where hey are setting the terms for the unity of Christ's church.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No thanks. I'm not interested in refighting all of those battles. I don't think it saves the cause of Christ. The questions you raise are important, but not in this context, where hey are setting the terms for the unity of Christ's church.

I can well understand not wanting to beat a dead horse. There comes a point when you've said your piece and don't have any desire to get into it again. I totally get that.

But if unity is to ever be realized, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church both have specific terms they would need to have satisfied just from a soteriological standpoint like Wgw says. I can understand that you have no desire to get into that but sooner or later someone (a group of someones) will have to broach that subject if all these separate organizations are going to be reunited.

 

[hedrick]

I can well understand not wanting to beat a dead horse. There comes a point when you've said your piece and don't have any desire to get into it again. I totally get that.

But if unity is to ever be realized, the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church both have specific terms they would need to have satisfied just from a soteriological standpoint like Wgw says. I can understand that you have no desire to get into that but sooner or later someone (a group of someones) will have to broach that subject if all these separate organizations are going to be reunited.

As long as each church thinks it has the right to set terms for what is, after all. Christ's Church, we're stuck. Clearly in this discussion at least, we're hopelessly stuck.

 

[Wgw]

No thanks. I'm not interested in refighting all of those battles. I don't think it saves the cause of Christ. The questions you raise are important, but not in this context, where hey are setting the terms for the unity of Christ's church.

So on that basis surely you can admit the wisdom of maintaining the status quo.

 

[Wgw]

As long as each church thinks it has the right to set terms for what is, after all. Christ's Church, we're stuck. Clearly in this discussion at least, we're hopelessly stuck.

Well according to Matthew 16:18 the Church cannot have ever faltered, so it is not unreasonable for the Orthodox and Catholics to adhere to an uncompromising position. Note that this is not the perspective of a few irrelevant Old Calendarist sectarians, but is a view that is altogether mainstream in Orthodoxy, expressed even in gentle terms by the likes of more liberal bishops such as Meteopolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia.

 

[RDKirk]

http://www.revelationtv.com/rnews/entry/the-reformation-debate-this-wednesday-at-21.00hrs

An interesting debate. Oh and that time is 4 pm eastern standard time for those of us on this side of the pond. I thought we could do a running commentary of the debate here, and discuss the notion. Gimme a sec and I'll post a poll.

If that were true, why was there a Counter Reformation? And since there was a Counter Reformation, is anyone contending that it wasn't necessary anyway, even if there had not been a Reformation?

 

[BobRyan]

If that were true, why was there a Counter Reformation? And since there was a Counter Reformation, is anyone contending that it wasn't necessary anyway, even if there had not been a Reformation?

The Reformation restored the legitimate place of the Bible in testing all doctrine and tradition.

The counter reformation established the legitimacy of the reformation from inside the RCC.

 

[BobRyan]

Well according to Matthew 16:18 the Church cannot have ever faltered,

According to Acts 20 the church would have errors inserted into it.
According to 2Thess 2:1-4 that would result in gross apostasy
According to 1 Tim 1 that error was starting up in the first century.
According to Titus 1 - that error was expanding into new churches.
According to 3John 1 - that error continued to expand.


so it is unreasonable for the Orthodox and Catholics to adhere to some of their current assumptions.