Is there an Universal Church or just local churches?

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

How is it not a common Eucharist, Christ is the body and the blood. So what's uncommon about that?

By a common Eucharist I mean we share the same Eucharist. In my Church only Orthodox can receive the sacrament. I would not receive the sacrament from any other Church not in communion with my own.

 

[ToBeLoved]

recognise each others full validity is proof of disunity.

I don't know what you mean by 'recognize their full validity'. I recognize all denominations but Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons which don't follow the Nicene Creed.

I don't see that we don't validate them

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well to that I could say, why don't you become Interdenominational and attend a Bible Church. If your argument is that we are not one, but you choose a denomination, isn't that kind of the pot calling the kettle black? Not to be rude, I'm just saying.

Because I am convinced of the 2000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church and not the recent phenomena of non-denominational Churches with no historic roots in anything other than the individual who started them. My choice of a denomination does not mean I am opposed to unity, rather I am opposed to superficial unity.

 

[ToBeLoved]

By a common Eucharist I mean we share the same Eucharist. In my Church only Orthodox can receive the sacrament. I would not receive the sacrament from any other Church not in communion with my own.

So what though. We all celebrate Christ, so it does'nt bother me at all that I cannot take Eucharist in your church. If I wanted to attend your church, I would join and convert.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Because I am convinced of the 2000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church and not the recent phenomena of non-denominational Churches with no historic roots in anything other than the individual who started them. My choice of a denomination does not mean I am opposed to unity, rather I am opposed to superficial unity.

Well I disagree. I think the Bible is God-breathed and if followed, no church has a upper hand with God.

God looks at faith and love, not where we go to church, IMHO.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

So what though. We all celebrate Christ, so it does'nt bother me at all that I cannot take Eucharist in your church. If I wanted to attend your church, I would join and convert.

The Eucharist as an institution was given by Christ to his disciples before his death. We are to do this in remembrance of him. Imagine if Andrew said he would not share from the same cup with Peter, how much scandal and division between the Apostles that would represent. They shared from the same cup, so we should likewise share from the same and that is an icon of what Christian unity should be.

The Eucharist in Orthodox theology is the centre of the worship service, it is the point the entire liturgy is dedicated to preparing and then distributing to the fiathful. It is a life giving sacrament, truly the body of Christ. You might dissagree witht hat but this is the historic belief of the Orthodox Church (also RCC hold to similar views on it's importance as do High Church Lutherans and Anglicans). I don't think this was your intention but to me when I hear you say: "It doesn't bother me at all that I cannot take Eucharist in your church," It essentially means you think what the Church does in it's Eucharist or the meaning it attributes to it is not essential.

Well I disagree. I think the Bible is God-breathed and if followed, no church has a upper hand with God.

God looks at faith and love, not where we go to church, IMHO.

If we were to place ourselves in the first century, would communion with the Apostles and their Church be an option?

 

[ToBeLoved]

The Eucharist as an institution was given by Christ to his disciples before his death. We are to do this in remembrance of him. Imagine if Andrew said he would not share from the same cup with Peter, how much scandal and division between the Apostles that would represent. They shared from the same cup, so we should likewise share from the same and that is an icon of what Christian unity should be.

The Eucharist in Orthodox theology is the centre of the worship service, it is the point the entire liturgy is dedicated to preparing and then distributing to the fiathful. It is a life giving sacrament, truly the body of Christ. You might dissagree witht hat but this is the historic belief of the Orthodox Church (also RCC hold to similar views on it's importance as do High Church Lutherans and Anglicans). I don't think this was your intention but to me when I hear you say: "It doesn't bother me at all that I cannot take Eucharist in your church," It essentially means you think what the Church does in it's Eucharist or the meaning it attributes to it is not essential.



If we were to place ourselves in the first century, would communion with the Apostles and their Church be an option?

So if your church is the 'true church' why don't they do Eucharist for everyone?

That blows your whole argument out of the water. They believe they are special, but Christ said He came for ALL men. Whatever makes you think your church got it right is as prideful as anything.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well I disagree. I think the Bible is God-breathed and if followed, no church has a upper hand with God.

God looks at faith and love, not where we go to church, IMHO.

So if your church is the 'true church' why don't they do Eucharist for everyone?

That blows your whole argument out of the water. They believe they are special, but Christ said He came for ALL men. Whatever makes you think your church got it right is as prideful as anything.

Then by your standard the Church should allow atheists, Jews, Muslims and those who deny Christianity to become part of her. It isn't that people are denied, it's that the Church has standards, it has a confession that it expects people to hold to if they want to be part of this body.

You argued earlier that we are united by the Nicene creed. I think its good you use that as a benchmark, but what about the canons of Nicaea itself? What about the communities which gathered at Nicaea and remain to this day that implement those canons (not perfectly all the time I will admit). Orthodoxy of course extends beyond 325 to the next six ecumenical councils and then of course there is a wealth of historical information to deal with. We cannot betray that in favour of universalism much like I don't think you would compromise your beliefs for universalism either.

 

[DamianWarS]

Today, as thousands of years ago "C" atholic meant/means Tradition as well as authentic.

Catholic (capital C) is not just a noun it is a proper noun. Your example saying poor people and The Poor is not the same as "The Poor" is a proper noun designating and proper noun

there is no distinction between catholic and Catholic just as there is no distinction between poor people the The Poor.

By who, you?

this is a question of grammar. Catholic (capital C) is not just merely an adjective turned into a noun it is an adjective turned into a proper noun. Nominalized adjectives do not get capitalized only proper nouns or names of things do and they do not necessarily take on the original word's meaning. For example the adjective "green" as in "a green car" is an adjective because it describes the car. Saying "the green" is a nominalized adjective; it is a noun that somehow embodies the characteristic of the adjective green. In this case "the green" is a specialized term for the green on a golf course. But "The Green" (proper noun) is a reggae band.

Your example of poor people being the same as "The Poor" is not the same thing, as "The Poor" is a proper noun. "The Poor", by its capitalization, reveals itself as a name of something which may or may not have anything to do with actual poor people. For example "The Poor" is actually an Australian hard rock band. Where "the poor" is talking about the collective group of poor people.

As pointed out the word "catholic" comes from the greek word "katholikos" meaning "universal" which is derived from the greek phrase "kath holos" (Acts 9:31... the church throughout all....) It was then latinized to "catholicus" then it was gallicized to "catholique" then finally anglicized to "catholic". But using it as a proper noun "Catholic" doesn't assume the original meaning but instead is just a name of something as "The Poor" or "The Green" is just a name. In fact today "Catholic" as a proper noun does not describe the universal church it describes a community of believers inside the universal church.

Since the word catholic is too ambiguous we should probably stick to using the words universal to describe the church (the collective group of believers) and Catholic to describe the community of believers within the universal church.

 

[concretecamper]

This is the third post in which I'm sure the point wasn't understood--and I'm not saying that in order to seem clever or tart. The issue was a genuine one, but all I can do at this stage is to suggest a re-read of all the relevant posts, beginning perhaps with Yeshuaslavejeff's post #10.

You are still missing the point. Please reread again what I responded to...PLEASE!

 

[ToBeLoved]

Because I am convinced of the 2000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church and not the recent phenomena of non-denominational Churches with no historic roots in anything other than the individual who started them. My choice of a denomination does not mean I am opposed to unity, rather I am opposed to superficial unity.

So you are divided as well. So much for one church, when it's your church maybe.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Then by your standard the Church should allow atheists, Jews, Muslims and those who deny Christianity to become part of her. It isn't that people are denied, it's that the Church has standards.

I never talked about muslims or Atheists. I said those who accept that
The Eucharist is Christ. How is the all the people you listed? Are you sure you read my post?

 

[ToBeLoved]

. It isn't that people are denied, it's that the Church has standards, it has a confession that it expects people to hold to if they want to be part of this body.
.

Well your the one who said churches don't validate one another and here is your church denying Eucharist but says it is the one true church. I guarantee the apostles never turned anyone away. Pot meet kettle.

 

[ToBeLoved]

.
You argued earlier that we are united by the Nicene creed. I think its good you use that as a benchmark, but what about the canons of Nicaea itself? What about the communities which gathered at Nicaea and remain to this day that implement those canons (not perfectly all the time I will admit).

I said specifically the Nicene Creed.

 

[com7fy8]

There is the one body of Christ. And no local or denominational group can be part of the body of Jesus unless every member of the group is a child of God So, the true catholic church is made up only of children of God . . . members of Jesus.

And our Apostle Paul speaks of us "who first trusted in Christ", in Ephesians 1:12.

 

[DamianWarS]

Because I am convinced of the 2000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church and not the recent phenomena of non-denominational Churches with no historic roots in anything other than the individual who started them. My choice of a denomination does not mean I am opposed to unity, rather I am opposed to superficial unity.

all christian communities stem from the same source which is Christ. The Orthodox church may arguably theme itself after the early church tradition but in practice it looks nothing like the humble beginnings of the church that we see in the NT. The Orthodox church has evolved into what it is today similar to every christian tradition. If we were talking about the oldest club than sure the Orthodox church can have the trophy but faith in Christ has nothing to do with that and we all can embrace early church history the same way. These claims that certain christian traditions being the true church may be accepted in your tradition but in spirit goes against CF's statement of faith and is counter-gospel.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

all christian communities stem from the same source which is Christ. The Orthodox church may arguably theme itself after the early church tradition but in practice it looks nothing like the humble beginnings of the church that we see in the NT. The Orthodox church has evolved into what it is today similar to every christian tradition. If we were talking about the oldest club than sure the Orthodox church can have the trophy but faith in Christ has nothing to do with that and we all can embrace early church history the same way. These claims that certain christian traditions being the true church may be accepted in your tradition but in spirit goes against CF's statement of faith and is counter-gospel.

If change within the body means we have departed from the Gospel as originally given then no Christian today who confesses trinity, an incarnational theology and numerous other elements not clearly defined within the New Testament canon cannot be considered Christian.

As for going against Christian forums standards, am I? I recognise Protestants, Catholics and Oriental Christians as fellow Christians whom have a genuine faith. I cannot however lessen the claims of the Orthodox Church for the sake of being politically correct and acting as if I think the situation that Christendom finds itself today, that of various competing denominations not in communion with each other, is actually a good thing. It isn't.

Yes the Orthodox Church has changed in response to the ages, in response to controversies and necessarily formalised what might have been informal in the past. This however does not characterise a departure from the Gospel once given which is summed up in our confession of the Nicene creed. As for faith in Christ not being tied to Church, that is a statement I would need to see demonstrated, biblically or historically. We don't find separate communities utterly inter dependant from each other yet recognising each other as fully Christian in the early Church. There is a real concern to have unity, to not cause schism, such as when the Apostles gathered to decide the fate of us gentiles whether or not we had to become Jews. We can see the inter communion at play when Paul asks for donations for the Jerusalem Church or that in the very act of Paul writing letters to various churches he was not physically present, urging them to correct faith and teaching and unity not only with each other but with him also.

I understand this can be a sensitive topic, but if we truly want to be unified we must confront it and lay out our differences plainly.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Well your the one who said churches don't validate one another and here is your church denying Eucharist but says it is the one true church. I guarantee the apostles never turned anyone away. Pot meet kettle.

Well you don't know who the Apostles turned and accepted at their Eucharistic feasts. We aren't given that information. Yet should be assume they would readily accept a schismatic or someone who claimed to be by a Church not in communion with them? Reason leads me to think they would not, that they would know who was theirs by that person's faith and willingness to listen to those who had heard the Lord himself and had been personally selected. This is speculation mind you and if you can provide a greater case than I have, please do show the Apostles allowed members not of their Church into their love feasts.

I said specifically the Nicene Creed.

That's why I pointed to the canons which accompany the creed. It perhaps gives us an understanding of what the creed itself meant to the fathers who endorsed these rules. I mean what does it mean that in canon 4 Bishops should be appointed by all the Bishops in the same province? What does the language of excommunication, deposing, canonical law mean? This was how the Church of the third century operated and saw itself and it did not view these things lightly, as perhaps mere excommunication from the earthly organisation, but rather excommunication from the heavenly and life giving body, the Church of God.

So you are divided as well. So much for one church, when it's your church maybe.

I don't know what this actually means. How does me joining a specific type of Christianity, namely Orthodoxy, mean I am myself divided? Orthodoxy has it's issues but this is not one of them. I am really baffled as to this criticism.

I never talked about muslims or Atheists. I said those who accept that
The Eucharist is Christ. How is the all the people you listed? Are you sure you read my post?

You were arguing that the Eucharist is free and open to all. Why should it be limited to only Christians? It is then not free and open to all in a complete sense, but it is free in your mind to those who accept Christianity. This is perhaps what you actually meant but if I am correct in this you end up limiting the Eucharist and who it is distributed to and why should it necessarily stop there? Please also consider that it isn't out of malice the Orthodox or any closed communion church for that matter, doesn't allow those outside of it to take the Eucharist, it is because of how seriously it treats the Eucharist. It is bound up ultimately in the vision of what the Church is. If your perspective of an invisible Church is correct then you would be correct, but I am I correct, that the church is truly visible and has been carried on to this day by the Orthodox, it is most certainty I whom is correct.

I would be interested in your opinion, do you feel it unjust for the Orthodox Church to refuse you holy communion? Do you think we are basically unified enough in order to share this sacrament?

 

[DamianWarS]

If change within the body means we have departed from the Gospel as originally given then no Christian today who confesses trinity, an incarnational theology and numerous other elements not clearly defined within the New Testament canon cannot be considered Christian.

As for going against Christian forums standards, am I? I recognise Protestants, Catholics and Oriental Christians as fellow Christians whom have a genuine faith. I cannot however lessen the claims of the Orthodox Church for the sake of being politically correct and acting as if I think the situation that Christendom finds itself today, that of various competing denominations not in communion with each other, is actually a good thing. It isn't.

Yes the Orthodox Church has changed in response to the ages, in response to controversies and necessarily formalised what might have been informal in the past. This however does not characterise a departure from the Gospel once given which is summed up in our confession of the Nicene creed. As for faith in Christ not being tied to Church, that is a statement I would need to see demonstrated, biblically or historically. We don't find separate communities utterly inter dependant from each other yet recognising each other as fully Christian in the early Church. There is a real concern to have unity, to not cause schism, such as when the Apostles gathered to decide the fate of us gentiles whether or not we had to become Jews. We can see the inter communion at play when Paul asks for donations for the Jerusalem Church or that in the very act of Paul writing letters to various churches he was not physically present, urging them to correct faith and teaching and unity not only with each other but with him also.

I understand this can be a sensitive topic, but if we truly want to be unified we must confront it and lay out our differences plainly.

unity is something both parties need to embrace. If we all can claim genuine faith in Christ then we are all brothers and our history has an meeting point and even overlaps. There certainly are clear points in history where disunity has caused factions but do not be so bold to claim original tradition above other believers.

Each moment a tradition embraces different values it moves away from the original and developes a new tradition even if ever so slight. Tradition v1, Tradition v2, Tradition v3... etc. Although the preceding traditions are superseded by the new they in themselves are a form of factions from their predecessors even if there is heavy overlap. Splits are much more dramatic of course but over time the changes of the "original tradition" become unrecognizable from their origins and they too are part of ever changing landscape of the church.

the gospel transcends culture and church tradition so changes should be expected. We have broad strokes of the orders and systems of an assembly but not fine detail within scripture because it is meant to be fluid allowing it to be expressed through an infinite amount of cultures and traditions and the details we do have we value.

Disunity is the wrong focus and splits of the church have magnified disunity that still is rampant today. But for you and me we can still embrace each other as brothers regardless of our tradition or what could even be described as lack of tradition because it is not our tradition that binds us together but instead our faith in Christ. The focus of our differences from a modern standpoint creates an "us" and "them" mentality when we should only be embracing "us". For me you are "us" and this is unity in Christ... there is no "them"

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

unity is something both parties need to embrace. If we all can claim genuine faith in Christ then we are all brothers and our history has an meeting point and even overlaps. There certainly are clear points in history where disunity has caused factions but do not be so bold to claim original tradition above other believers.

Each moment a tradition embraces different values it moves away from the original and developes a new tradition even if ever so slight. Tradition v1, Tradition v2, Tradition v3... etc. Although the preceding traditions are superseded by the new they in themselves are a form of factions from their predecessors even if there is heavy overlap. Splits are much more dramatic of course but over time the changes of the "original tradition" become unrecognizable from their origins and they too are part of ever changing landscape of the church.

the gospel transcends culture and church tradition so changes should be expected. We have broad strokes of the orders and systems of an assembly but not fine detail within scripture because it is meant to be fluid allowing it to be expressed through an infinite amount of cultures and traditions and the details we do have we value.

Disunity is the wrong focus and splits of the church have magnified disunity that still is rampant today. But for you and me we can still embrace each other as brothers regardless of our tradition or what could even be described as lack of tradition because it is not our tradition that binds us together but instead our faith in Christ. The focus of our differences from a modern standpoint creates an "us" and "them" mentality when we should only be embracing "us". For me you are "us" and this is unity in Christ... there is no "them"

When I look at Christ's words that he wished the Church to be one, I do not see that as a superficial oneness or agreement on an intellectual idea of faith. I see it as a command to be actual communion with one another, to have a common liturgical life, to be accountable to one another, to not be utterly independent separate organisms which are in schism.

The problem with what your suggesting is that you think the situation in Christianity today is the norm, that we are unified and I don't buy that. I look to the first century and see communion with the Apostles as a standard for the Church, not an option. We then proceed to the second century where the Apostles have died and in their place we have the Churches left by them. They were not radically independent of each other, they were not each to their own, they were not their own denominations but the one Church. Just glancing at ante Nicene writers can show us the concern for unity amongst different churches in different countries or societies (Ignatius, Clement, Justin and Cyprian for example). When did it become permissible to start one's own Church away from the root? When did it become permissible to simply read a bible, feel convicted and set up a distinct body (like the reformers did)?

Schism is a very real thing and meant consequences within the history of the Church. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are in schism, hence they will not co-celebrate the Eucharist. Protestantism represents a schism from Rome and ultimately it's heritage is tied to and from Rome in that regard. These schisms aren't inconsequential and absolutely impact the unity of Christians. We cannot ignore them in seeking unity.