Is there an Universal Church or just local churches?

[DamianWarS]

Schism is an real issue within christianity and I'm not being ignorant to it but wagging a finger at the past is not going to fix it. It is also unrealistic to think there will be a massive return to former traditions. It may not be desired or ideal but the current state of the church is in factions and a restoration of unity must operate within this context. To build greater ecumentical relations we need to have more open door approaches in communion with other believers and this includes the eucharist. If a tradition cannot do this then I question how they can call others christian but at the same time cannot share in communion with them. It hurts me to see people so rich in Christ yet so distant from each other. Unity starts in your own heart so if you truly desire it then act upon it.

 

[Albion]

Schism is an real issue within christianity and I'm not being ignorant to it but wagging a finger at the past is not going to fix it. It is also unrealistic to think there will be a massive return to former traditions. It may not be desired or ideal but the current state of the church is in factions and a restoration of unity must operate within this context.

Many people worry about the lack of unity, but there is no religion on Earth of any size that is free of splits. When it comes to social or philosophical ideas, they disagree with each other and always will. Even the churches that have something close to organizational unity have internal splits and tensions and disagreements. We worry too much about this kind of thing.

To build greater ecumentical relations we need to have more open door approaches in communion with other believers and this includes the eucharist. If a tradition cannot do this then I question how they can call others christian but at the same time cannot share in communion with them.

And yet, if you take that approach, you will wind up having to be "all things to all people" and not stand behind ANY principle so long as anyone disagrees with it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

And yet, if you take that approach, you will wind up having to be "all things to all people" and not stand behind ANY principle so long as anyone disagrees with it.

^^ This is a really good point.

We all have to some day stand in front of the Lord for it.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Schism is an real issue within christianity and I'm not being ignorant to it but wagging a finger at the past is not going to fix it. It is also unrealistic to think there will be a massive return to former traditions. It may not be desired or ideal but the current state of the church is in factions and a restoration of unity must operate within this context. To build greater ecumentical relations we need to have more open door approaches in communion with other believers and this includes the eucharist. If a tradition cannot do this then I question how they can call others christian but at the same time cannot share in communion with them. It hurts me to see people so rich in Christ yet so distant from each other. Unity starts in your own heart so if you truly desire it then act upon it.

I can't go for such a compromise because it involves a modern conception of the Church which is not the one given to us by the Apostles. Unity doesn't start by allowing everyone with every different opinion in, otherwise the 2nd century Church should be condemned for excluding the gnostics and forcing them to have a basic orthodoxy before being received into communion or back into full communion with the Church.

Unless the ecclesiology of the entire Church before the reformation is wrong I cannot be convinced of such a system.

 

[DamianWarS]

I can't go for such a compromise because it involves a modern conception of the Church which is not the one given to us by the Apostles. Unity doesn't start by allowing everyone with every different opinion in, otherwise the 2nd century Church should be condemned for excluding the gnostics and forcing them to have a basic orthodoxy before being received into communion or back into full communion with the Church.

Unless the ecclesiology of the entire Church before the reformation is wrong I cannot be convinced of such a system.

such is the great debate of the modern church. But if your tradition/yourself refuses to be in communion with other Christians than it would be irresponsible to think unity can happen outside of the your own tradition.

A 2nd century example doesn't help this discussion, for starters the apostles were still living (at the very least John). Church doctrine has come a long way since then and I think at the very least the nicene creed would be a more responsible starting position. But your example is your tell. It is extreme and reflects your traditions position as a dichotomy of "doctrine" vs "heresy", "right" vs "wrong", "us" vs "them". Even if unwritten it is the culture that is being manifested and it does not promote unity. This is why I commented earlier that in spirit it goes against CF and is counter-gospel. It is counter-gospel because it limits the reach of the gospel only to your tradition and discredits everything else as inauthentic, at best a type of para-christianity but not real christianity. It would be remiss of me if I did not say this concerns me and is inherently hurtful.

 

[kepha31]

such is the great debate of the modern church. But if your tradition/yourself refuses to be in communion with other Christians than it would be irresponsible to think unity can happen outside of the your own tradition.

A 2nd century example doesn't help this discussion, for starters the apostles were still living (at the very least John). Church doctrine has come a long way since then and I think at the very least the nicene creed would be a more responsible starting position. But your example is your tell. It is extreme and reflects your traditions position as a dichotomy of "doctrine" vs "heresy", "right" vs "wrong", "us" vs "them". Even if unwritten it is the culture that is being manifested and it does not promote unity. This is why I commented earlier that in spirit it goes against CF and is counter-gospel. It is counter-gospel because it limits the reach of the gospel only to your tradition and discredits everything else as inauthentic, at best a type of para-christianity but not real christianity. It would be remiss of me if I did not say this concerns me and is inherently hurtful.

2. No one is unaware of the challenge which all this poses to believers. They cannot fail to meet this challenge. Indeed, how could they refuse to do everything possible, with God's help, to break down the walls of division and distrust, to overcome obstacles and prejudices which thwart the proclamation of the Gospel of salvation in the Cross of Jesus, the one Redeemer of man, of every individual?

I thank the Lord that he has led us to make progress along the path of unity and communion between Christians, a path difficult but so full of joy. Interconfessional dialogues at the theological level have produced positive and tangible results: this encourages us to move forward.

Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions. What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people's minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation...
Ut Unum Sint (25 May 1995) | John Paul II

 

[Phil 1:21]

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 respect your faith and opinions and say none of this to be insulting. I offer this merely as an explanation for why a lot of people feel the way they do about various types of churches. I’m not saying one side is right and another is wrong, so please don’t take it that way.


I grew up Roman Catholic, so I’m very familiar with how mass is conducted. For some, the beauty of the ceremony is very fulfilling. As you said, the service revolves around the Eucharist, which to some is exactly what they are seeking.


That notwithstanding, let’s look at Christ’s ministry. Did He spend three years traveling the countryside instructing people on conducting ceremonies? No. He taught. And what did He teach? The Good News, the Word of God. Over and over in the NT we read how amazed people were at His teaching. When he sent out the twelve during His ministry, what did He tell them to do? Spread the Good News. What did His disciples do after they received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost? They became the ultimate evangelicals, traveling all over, spreading the Gospel, establishing churches and converting the masses.


For that reason a lot of people don’t feel ceremonial church services like the Catholic mass are a reflection of Jesus’ example for how we are to witness and worship. For some people, repetitive, scripted ceremonies in lavishly adorned cathedrals just don’t reflect the Jesus we read about in the Bible. Christ and His apostles were teachers of the Word, and there is very little teaching at all happening in Catholic mass. I haven’t sat in on a Catholic mass in many years, but I’ll bet I could still dang near recite it from memory. If not, there’s a missal in the pew back that will tell me every word the priest will say (excluding the 5-minute homily). As a matter of fact, there's a thread on one of the Catholic subforums where folks expressed outrage that a Catholic priest did not recite the mass exactly as it is scripted in the missal. Like I said, a lot of people connect well with Catholic mass, but many do not.


This is why we see so many non-denominational churches popping up and thriving all over the country. A lot of folks are looking for churches that are focused on preaching and teaching the Good Word, just like Jesus and His disciples did. Just speaking for myself, every time I walk out of church on Sunday I do so with new insight into the Word of God that I can apply to my everyday life to help me better walk with Christ. I never got that sitting in a Catholic church where the service was a ceremony revolving around Holy Communion. But I do get that out of a church service that revolves around Christ’s example of preaching and teaching about the Word of God.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

such is the great debate of the modern church. But if your tradition/yourself refuses to be in communion with other Christians than it would be irresponsible to think unity can happen outside of the your own tradition.

A 2nd century example doesn't help this discussion, for starters the apostles were still living (at the very least John). Church doctrine has come a long way since then and I think at the very least the nicene creed would be a more responsible starting position. But your example is your tell. It is extreme and reflects your traditions position as a dichotomy of "doctrine" vs "heresy", "right" vs "wrong", "us" vs "them". Even if unwritten it is the culture that is being manifested and it does not promote unity. This is why I commented earlier that in spirit it goes against CF and is counter-gospel. It is counter-gospel because it limits the reach of the gospel only to your tradition and discredits everything else as inauthentic, at best a type of para-christianity but not real christianity. It would be remiss of me if I did not say this concerns me and is inherently hurtful.

My tradition won't open itself to communion with others for the simple reason that it cannot go beyond what it has received. Yours is a 16th century ecclesiology, a product of the reformation which seeks unity because of the numerous schisms that resulted from sola scriptura. The Orthodox Church's ecclesiology is far more ancient, rooted in the pre and post nicene fathers whom were not in the organisation of the Church.

That being said, the church is no more counter gospel than Paul or the Apostles were, who expected communion to be with them and not those who were outside of them. It is unfortunate that you find you exclusion from Orthodoxy and I suppose the RCC, Oriental Church and closed communion Protestant Churches hurtful, but they are being faithful to what has been received.

Also I never discredited all other forms of Christianity as inauthentic. I do not believe they have the truth, but you will never find me saying the likes of C.S Lewis or yourself are not Christian.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I respect your faith and opinions and say none of this to be insulting. I offer this merely as an explanation for why a lot of people feel the way they do about various types of churches. I’m not saying one side is right and another is wrong, so please don’t take it that way.


I grew up Roman Catholic, so I’m very familiar with how mass is conducted. For some, the beauty of the ceremony is very fulfilling. As you said, the service revolves around the Eucharist, which to some is exactly what they are seeking.


That notwithstanding, let’s look at Christ’s ministry. Did He spend three years traveling the countryside instructing people on conducting ceremonies? No. He taught. And what did He teach? The Good News, the Word of God. Over and over in the NT we read how amazed people were at His teaching. When he sent out the twelve during His ministry, what did He tell them to do? Spread the Good News. What did His disciples do after they received the Holy Spirit on Pentecost? They became the ultimate evangelicals, traveling all over, spreading the Gospel, establishing churches and converting the masses.


For that reason a lot of people don’t feel ceremonial church services like the Catholic mass are a reflection of Jesus’ example for how we are to witness and worship. For some people, repetitive, scripted ceremonies in lavishly adorned cathedrals just don’t reflect the Jesus we read about in the Bible. Christ and His apostles were teachers of the Word, and there is very little teaching at all happening in Catholic mass. I haven’t sat in on a Catholic mass in many years, but I’ll bet I could still dang near recite it from memory. If not, there’s a missal in the pew back that will tell me every word the priest will say (excluding the 5-minute homily). As a matter of fact, there's a thread on one of the Catholic subforums where folks expressed outrage that a Catholic priest did not recite the mass exactly as it is scripted in the missal. Like I said, a lot of people connect well with Catholic mass, but many do not.


This is why we see so many non-denominational churches popping up and thriving all over the country. A lot of folks are looking for churches that are focused on preaching and teaching the Good Word, just like Jesus and His disciples did. Just speaking for myself, every time I walk out of church on Sunday I do so with new insight into the Word of God that I can apply to my everyday life to help me better walk with Christ. I never got that sitting in a Catholic church where the service was a ceremony revolving around Holy Communion. But I do get that out of a church service that revolves around Christ’s example of preaching and teaching about the Word of God.

Christ didn't go around teaching the Church ceremonies during his three years, yet he did before his death offer us the Eucharist and tell us to do in memory of him. The Church has taken this advice to heart and follows it. Teaching is essential in the Church but it is not the focus of any of the most ancient liturgies, that is a protestant innovation which focused on the word to the exclusion or near dismissal of the Eucharist. It's not surprising that we find a lack of Eucharist in Churches which dismiss the real presence. If you think the Orthodox are wrong to make the Eucharist the centre of the liturgical worship experience, was the Church wrong for doing this before the reformation? Like not just before the reformation but essentially since the second century? I would even say the first century based on the New Testament.

As for the idea that non denominational Churches just pop up, I would compare that to Christianity before the reformation. What were the churches that existed and continued to exist? They were those Churches which emphasised communion, those Churches that had a strict liturgy and all others fell into obscurity. We can see four ancient traditions which continue to exist to this day, the RCC, EO, OO and Nestorian Churches. That is no accident. Why do we feel at liberty to start Churches when no one has appointed us? It's as if the modern churches which only begin to appear think they are like Paul, yet even Paul bound himself in communion to the Apostles.

 

[bekkilyn]

The Church is kind of like the Trinity but with more parts. So Trinity as in ONE God with three parts, and the Church as in ONE universal church with many parts (denominations). So ONE body of Christ with multiple members. The body of Christ is made up of multiple members from the multiple denominations, or non-denominations as the case may be. We aren't recognized as part of the Church by our denomination, but by the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Christ didn't go around teaching the Church ceremonies during his three years, yet he did before his death offer us the Eucharist and tell us to do in memory of him. The Church has taken this advice to heart and follows it.

Jesus taught us a lot of things, both directly and by example. Some denominations key in on that one thing to the near exclusion of all else. That is their right, as it is the right of people to accept or reject their methodology.

Teaching is essential in the Church but it is not the focus of any of the most ancient liturgies, that is a protestant innovation which focused on the word to the exclusion or near dismissal of the Eucharist. It's not surprising that we find a lack of Eucharist in Churches which dismiss the real presence. If you think the Orthodox are wrong to make the Eucharist the centre of the liturgical worship experience, was the Church wrong for doing this before the reformation? Like not just before the reformation but essentially since the second century? I would even say the first century based on the New Testament.

Just because someone has been doing something for a long time does not automatically make it correct. Maybe it is; maybe it isn’t. But chronology does not equal correctness.

Why do we feel at liberty to start Churches when no one has appointed us? It's as if the modern churches which only begin to appear think they are like Paul, yet even Paul bound himself in communion to the Apostles.

To say someone needs an appointment by man to start a church places man above God. Jesus gave us an incredible example of how to follow Him and a perfect book to use. The rise of non-denominational churches is people wanting to get back to that instead of all “add-ons” people have tacked onto it over the centuries.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

To say someone needs an appointment by man to start a church places man above God. Jesus gave us an incredible example of how to follow Him and a perfect book to use. The rise of non-denominational churches is people wanting to get back to that instead of all “add-ons” people have tacked onto it over the centuries.

This assumes a fundamental dichotomy between Church and man. Would you apply this standard to the Apostles? Was someone allowed to appoint themselves a presbyter in the first century on their own volition? The only example we have of someone being appointed independently is Paul but he joined in the Apostles communion and didn't set himself up as an independent Church. He also received revelation, something of which I don't believe any nondenominational founder has received. If anyone is allowed to appoint themselves to positions of leadership there is no regulating of this and we have the situation that exists within Protestantism of each man being their own authority because of how they have read the bible.

The Church is comprised of men, some of whom are given authority and were given the responsibility to find the next generations leaders, see to their education and fitness for leading future congregations. This is part and parcel of the Church and exactly the type of standard we see in place in the second century with Ireaneaus and his encounters with the Gnostics. The succession of leadership, the living continuity between one generation and the next has been kept in Orthodoxy and the standard you advocate breaks that continuity. It essentially makes communion secondary to the faith when it instead should be a core aspect to the faith.

You are introducing a false dichotomy when you go with men vs God or tradition vs scripture. This is part of the reason why we cannot be unified, because there is a very real difference in how we operate and what we believe.

 

[kepha31]

The Church is kind of like the Trinity but with more parts. So Trinity as in ONE God with three parts, and the Church as in ONE universal church with many parts (denominations). So ONE body of Christ with multiple members. The body of Christ is made up of multiple members from the multiple denominations, or non-denominations as the case may be. We aren't recognized as part of the Church by our denomination, but by the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.

I don't think the Holy Spirit that dwells within us has anything to do with scandalous divisions.

 

[Albion]

To say someone needs an appointment by man to start a church places man above God.

Not really. What it does is follow along with the way the New Testament describes the operation of the first churches. Because we believe that the NT is the revealed word of God, that has to count with us.

Jesus gave us an incredible example of how to follow Him and a perfect book to use.

That's right, and it's reason enough for not departing from the NT standards in this matter.

The rise of non-denominational churches is people wanting to get back to that instead of all “add-ons” people have tacked onto it over the centuries.

The Protestant Reformation did that. What non-denominational churches represent is a protest against the Reformation. So I have to wonder what it is about the reformed churches that the non-denoms reject.

 

[bekkilyn]

I don't think the Holy Spirit that dwells within us has anything to do with scandalous divisions.

The Church of all believers in the body of Christ isn't divided, though we may all belong to different human-constructed denominations. If the Holy Spirit dwells within you, you belong to the universal Church of believers. Otherwise, you are still an unbeliever and have not yet become a part of Christ's body. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and our differences in tradition can help us to bring more into the fold.

 

[kepha31]

The Church of all believers in the body of Christ isn't divided, though we may all belong to different human-constructed denominations. If the Holy Spirit dwells within you, you belong to the universal Church of believers. Otherwise, you are still an unbeliever and have not yet become a part of Christ's body. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and our differences in tradition can help us to bring more into the fold.

I look forward to the day when different human-constructed denominations stop attacking us with straw man fallacies and stupid insults. Does the Holy Spirit guide "true believers" into bearing false witness?

We have document after document seeking unity. We have a whole commission dedicated to ecumenism. The Church recognizes other churches as a means of salvation. CCC 817-820
We hand an olive branch and look what we get in return.

 

[bekkilyn]

I look forward to the day when different human-constructed denominations stop attacking us with straw man fallacies and stupid insults. Does the Holy Spirit guide "true believers" into bearing false witness?

We have document after document seeking unity. We have a whole commission dedicated to ecumenism. The Church recognizes other churches as a means of salvation. CCC 817-820
We hand an olive branch and look what we get in return.

All denominations that compose the three main branches of Christendom, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, are all full of sinful humans, and we do tend to bicker among us. If a believer sins and bears false witness against another believer (or non-believer), it's not due to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but to the human's sinful nature. "For all fall short of the glory of God." The sin and corruption that permeates everything in this world will not entirely go away until Christ's return. (It is even supposed to get worse before the end.) Even if all the denominations merged into one, there would be divisions between regions, countries, monastic orders, etc. Not that we shouldn't try to do the best we can when we can, and use our differences in tradition in positive rather than negative ways, but we will not be able to create complete unity through our own efforts.

What *isn't* divided though, and what unifies us all together in a more spiritual sense, is our common faith in Jesus Christ and our membership in His universal Church, that supersedes all of our human-constructed denominations and churches. Whether someone finds Jesus and grows their faith in a Catholic or a Baptist church is secondary to the fact that they are now part of the body of Christ and is our new brother or sister.

We do have the hope and the promise of the day of Christ's return to look forward to though! It WILL happen, so there is joy in that day when he will gather all of his universal Church to him and eradicate all corruption!

 

[Phil 1:21]

This assumes a fundamental dichotomy between Church and man. Would you apply this standard to the Apostles? Was someone allowed to appoint themselves a presbyter in the first century on their own volition? The only example we have of someone being appointed independently is Paul but he joined in the Apostles communion and didn't set himself up as an independent Church. He also received revelation, something of which I don't believe any nondenominational founder has received. If anyone is allowed to appoint themselves to positions of leadership there is no regulating of this and we have the situation that exists within Protestantism of each man being their own authority because of how they have read the bible.

The Church is comprised of men, some of whom are given authority and were given the responsibility to find the next generations leaders, see to their education and fitness for leading future congregations. This is part and parcel of the Church and exactly the type of standard we see in place in the second century with Ireaneaus and his encounters with the Gnostics. The succession of leadership, the living continuity between one generation and the next has been kept in Orthodoxy and the standard you advocate breaks that continuity. It essentially makes communion secondary to the faith when it instead should be a core aspect to the faith.

You are introducing a false dichotomy when you go with men vs God or tradition vs scripture. This is part of the reason why we cannot be unified, because there is a very real difference in how we operate and what we believe.

Not really. What it does is follow along with the way the New Testament describes the operation of the first churches. Because we believe that the NT is the revealed word of God, that has to count with us.


That's right, and it's reason enough for not departing from the NT standards in this matter.


The Protestant Reformation did that. What non-denominational churches represent is a protest against the Reformation. So I have to wonder what it is about the reformed churches that the non-denoms reject.

Mark 9:38-41

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Mark 9:38-41

38 “Teacher,” said John, “we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”

39 “Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40 for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward.

Alright. Would that man be justified in setting up a rival Church to that of the Apostles?

 

[Phil 1:21]

Alright. Would that man be justified in setting up a rival Church to that of the Apostles?

"Rival church?" I think we just got to the core of the issue, people upset that they feel someone else is intruding on their turf. What did Jesus say about that? (hint, read my previous response)