Where does the Bible say that the church is invisible?

[cazayoux]

(1) Did Jesus establish at the beginning of the church age one united, visible church that He expected everyone who is a child of His to align themselves with?

This church, this community which is the body of Christ, is what Jesus wants us to be a part of.

YES…

One:

Acts 4:32
“The community of believers was of one heart and mind…”

United:

1 Cor 1:10
“…agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you”

Visible:

John 17:20-23
“that the world may know … that they may see”

Matt 18:17
“… tell it to the church …”

For all to align themselves with:

Matt 28:20
“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…”

(2) If yes, does this one united, visible church exist today and can it be readily recognized.

Exist today:
Jesus founded a church and said that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”. (Matt 16:18)

Matt 28:20
" and lo, I will be with you always, until the close of the age."

John 14:16
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,”

Recognizable: Apostolic succession

An office remained when the individual was gone.
Acts 1:20
“…and his bishoprick let another take.”

Timothy appointed by Paul…
1 Tim 1:18
“I entrust this charge to you, Timothy, my child,”

instructions to respect Timothy - FULL authority
1 Cor 4:17
“For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.”

Timothy asserting his authority to teach…
**2 Tim 1: 13-14 **
“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.”

Four generations of apostolic succession in this line.
2 Tim 2: 2
“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”

How is this authority passed on?
2 Tim 1:6
“For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands.”

1 Tim 4:14
“Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.”

1 Tim 5:22
“Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.”

Here the Catholics say “yes and we are it” while the Orthodox say “yes and we are it”. So immediately we have an issue with “readily recognized”. The Protestants of course say no.

For a number of reasons I have my doubts on this also.

While the Orthodox Churches may hold to apostolic succession, they do not show the unity, even between the 15 or 16 Orthodox churches.

(3) If yes to #2, is it the will of God that all of His children be united to this one church.

Here I am quite sure that even if #2 is correct, #3 does not follow and I have my doubts whether that is the case.

Truth is our goal, what we seek.
Jesus called himself ‘truth’.
Who is to protect truth?

1 Tim 3:15
“the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Eph 1:22-23
“…the church, which is his body”

Eph 5:23
Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body

YES we are to be a part of the body of Christ, ***His ***Church.

What of those that do not listen to the church?

Matt 18:17
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

It does not sound to me like we are to do anything but seek to be a part of the church that Jesus founded, protects, and teaches through.

Cheers!
michel

 

[Reformed]

This church, this community which is the body of Christ, is what Jesus wants us to be a part of.

YES…

One:

Acts 4:32
“The community of believers was of one heart and mind…”

United:

1 Cor 1:10
“…agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you”

Visible:

John 17:20-23
“that the world may know … that they may see”

Matt 18:17
“… tell it to the church …”

For all to align themselves with:

Matt 28:20
“teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…”

Exist today:
Jesus founded a church and said that “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it”. (Matt 16:18)

Matt 28:20
" and lo, I will be with you always, until the close of the age."

John 14:16
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,”

Recognizable: Apostolic succession

An office remained when the individual was gone.
Acts 1:20
“…and his bishoprick let another take.”

Timothy appointed by Paul…
1 Tim 1:18
“I entrust this charge to you, Timothy, my child,”

instructions to respect Timothy - FULL authority
1 Cor 4:17
“For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ (Jesus), just as I teach them everywhere in every church.”

Timothy asserting his authority to teach…
**2 Tim 1: 13-14 **
“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.
Guard this rich trust with the help of the holy Spirit that dwells within us.”

Four generations of apostolic succession in this line.
2 Tim 2: 2
“And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.”

How is this authority passed on?
2 Tim 1:6
“For this reason, I remind you to stir into flame the gift of God 5 that you have through the imposition of my hands.”

1 Tim 4:14
“Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate.”

1 Tim 5:22
“Do not lay hands too readily on anyone, and do not share in another’s sins. Keep yourself pure.”

While the Orthodox Churches may hold to apostolic succession, they do not show the unity, even between the 15 or 16 Orthodox churches.

Truth is our goal, what we seek.
Jesus called himself ‘truth’.
Who is to protect truth?

1 Tim 3:15
“the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

Eph 1:22-23
“…the church, which is his body”

Eph 5:23
Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body

YES we are to be a part of the body of Christ, ***His ***Church.

What of those that do not listen to the church?

Matt 18:17
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

It does not sound to me like we are to do anything but seek to be a part of the church that Jesus founded, protects, and teaches through.

Cheers!
michel

Do you believe the church is the Roman Catholic Church? Or, do you believe the church is made up of all sinners that have been reconciled to God through Christ, and are united to Christ through Faith?

 

[cazayoux]

Do you believe the church is the Roman Catholic Church? Or, do you believe the church is made up of all sinners that have been reconciled to God through Christ, and are united to Christ through Faith?

I believe that the community that Christ founded is the Catholic Church.

How do you believe sinners are reconciled to God through Christ?
Did Jesus give the power to forgive sins to men?

Is faith all that is necessary for being saved?
Is there anything else that we must do?

michel

 

[Contarini]

While the Orthodox Churches may hold to apostolic succession, they do not show the unity, even between the 15 or 16 Orthodox churches.

Can you explain just how and why the 15-16 (I’ll accept your number uncritically) Orthodox churches are disunited while the 22-23 Catholic churches are united? In fact, Catholics seem less committed to the “one bishop, one city” principle than Orthodox are. The Orthodox violate the principle radically in the United States, but most of them acknowledge that this is a problem and are trying to fix it. Catholics seem to have no problem whatever with having parallel hierarchies for Latins, Byzantines, Maronites, etc.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

Can you explain just how and why the 15-16 (I’ll accept your number uncritically) Orthodox churches are disunited while the 22-23 Catholic churches are united? In fact, Catholics seem less committed to the “one bishop, one city” principle than Orthodox are. The Orthodox violate the principle radically in the United States, but most of them acknowledge that this is a problem and are trying to fix it. Catholics seem to have no problem whatever with having parallel hierarchies for Latins, Byzantines, Maronites, etc.

Edwin

Separate rites should logically have separate hierarchies. It would not make sense for a Latin rite Bishop to run a Maronite church. The difference is that eventually, the top of the pyramid is Rome.

 

[cazayoux]

Can you explain just how and why the 15-16 (I’ll accept your number uncritically) Orthodox churches are disunited while the 22-23 Catholic churches are united? In fact, Catholics seem less committed to the “one bishop, one city” principle than Orthodox are. The Orthodox violate the principle radically in the United States, but most of them acknowledge that this is a problem and are trying to fix it. Catholics seem to have no problem whatever with having parallel hierarchies for Latins, Byzantines, Maronites, etc.

Edwin

The Catholic Rites are all in union with and recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the situation this way: “Within the Catholic Church … Canonical rites, which are of equal dignity, enjoy the same rights, and are under the same obligations. Although the particular churches possess their own hierarchy, differ in liturgical and ecclesiastical discipline, and possess their own spiritual heritage, they are all entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in the Primacy.”

Each Orthodox Church has it’s own ‘head’ and are not in communion with each other.

I had linked an article about the Orthodox Churches in an earlier post.
I’m only learning more about Orthodoxy myself during this thread.

Cheers!
michel

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Rites are all in union with and recognize the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

“Union with” is vague. What it really boils down to you is primacy. If they don’t recognize Rome’s primacy you will claim they aren’t in unity even with one another. Just so everyone is clear on how much force this argument has apart from the issue of Roman primacy itself (absolutely none).

Each Orthodox Church has it’s own ‘head’ and are not in communion with each other.

I had linked an article about the Orthodox Churches in an earlier post.
I’m only learning more about Orthodoxy myself during this thread.

Clearly you have a lot to learn. The canonical Orthodox churches are indeed in communion with each other. In fact, they even recognize the primacy of one See–Constantinople–though this recognition is far more tentative (i.e., Constantinople could cease to have primacy at some point) and less important than recognition of Roman primacy is for your Communion.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Separate rites should logically have separate hierarchies. It would not make sense for a Latin rite Bishop to run a Maronite church.

Why not? Or vice versa. I see no reason why rites and hierarchies should go together. This approach to church polity is completely alien to the ecclesiology of the Fathers. It’s a radical break with Christian tradition, which insists that there must be one bishop in any given place, and only one. Period.

The difference is that eventually, the top of the pyramid is Rome.

Well, that’s not how your Pope and most other recent Catholic theologians and bishops put it. “Pyramid” language is un-Patristic. You may not care about that. But it’s of interest to Protestants who find Catholicism appealing because it is more in agreement with the Fathers on many issues. The way you are thinking here is not in agreement with the Fathers at all.

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

Why not? Or vice versa. I see no reason why rites and hierarchies should go together. This approach to church polity is completely alien to the ecclesiology of the Fathers. It’s a radical break with Christian tradition, which insists that there must be one bishop in any given place, and only one. Period.

Honestly, I was looking at it from a political/practical issue. My Bishop does not have the same access to other rites in Alabama. Spiritually, you may be correct.

Well, that’s not how your Pope and most other recent Catholic theologians and bishops put it. “Pyramid” language is un-Patristic. You may not care about that. But it’s of interest to Protestants who find Catholicism appealing because it is more in agreement with the Fathers on many issues. The way you are thinking here is not in agreement with the Fathers at all.

Edwin

I do care about that, it was just an example. The biggest difference between EO and non-Latin rites within the Catholic Church is that those in the Catholic Church hold to the primacy of Peter. EO do not. Everything else comes from that.

 

[cazayoux]

Clearly you have a lot to learn. The canonical Orthodox churches are indeed in communion with each other. In fact, they even recognize the primacy of one See–Constantinople–though this recognition is far more tentative (i.e., Constantinople could cease to have primacy at some point) and less important than recognition of Roman primacy is for your Communion.

Edwin

Clearly. Agreed. I have a lot to learn. (have you been talking to my wife) )
This is a portion of what I posted earlier from an article that might help with understanding.

From an article…
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3781
The Orthodox Church has no single primate. It consists of 15 autocephalous churches, each headed by its own patriarch, archbishop or metropolitan.

In this family of Churches the patriarch of Constantinople is “primus inter pares,” **but his primacy is that of honor, not of jurisdiction, since he has no ecclesial authority over the other Churches. **When, therefore, he is presented as the “head” of the Orthodox Church worldwide, it is misleading. It is equally misleading when his meeting with the Pope of Rome is considered to be a meeting of the heads of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

michel

 

[cazayoux]

“Union with” is vague. What it really boils down to you is primacy. If they don’t recognize Rome’s primacy you will claim they aren’t in unity even with one another. Just so everyone is clear on how much force this argument has apart from the issue of Roman primacy itself (absolutely none).

You are right … ‘union with’ might not have been the proper words to convey the thought.
Maybe I should have said that all Christian rites recognize the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

The EO churches each, individually, do not recognize a higher jurisdiction than their own. (not Rome, not each other, not even Constantinople)

michel

 

[With_Questions]

The EO churches each, individually, do not recognize a higher jurisdiction than their own. (not Rome, not each other, not even Constantinople)

michel

Do all of the various EO denominations share a common theology? If so, what enforces that theology?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Maybe I should have said that all Christian rites recognize the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

Yes, all rites and all churches. And this was certainly true from time St. Paul wrote his epistle to the See of Rome and continuing many centuries afterward.

Of course some who have separated themselves from the Holy See have tried to justify their separation by insisting that, in the course of the long centuries, the Church of Rome had lost her way and had become corrupt. It is an old accusation. But the editors of the Fathers of the Church series respond to such a charge.

There was every reason in (or, at least, of] the world why the Fathers might have been tempted to abandon or modify the dogmatic, moral and sacramental tradition of the Apostles. There is here an intellectual and religious problem that no man of good will can dismiss without, at least, the courtesy of inquiry.

As for modern sectarian Christianity, the shibboleths of controversy lose their force in the face of this massive evidence. Phrases like ‘corruptions in doctrine and discipline’ look rather ridiculous when the ‘corruptions’ are traced back, in an unbroken line, from the seventh, to the fourth, to the first century.

Or, to take an obvious example, who can be inclined to accuse a thoroughly Oriental bishop of the first century like Ignatius of Antioch of, let us say, 'the later legal constitutionalism’ of the Latin spirit? Yet no Latin Father was ever so strong for the hierarchic position of bishops and no modern ‘Romanist’ was ever more flattering in speaking of the primacy of Rome than the Syrian bishop of Antioch.

The Fathers of the Church, A New Translation, Volume I (1947), Ludwig Schopp, Roy Joseph Deferrari eds., Catholic University of America, Introduction, xi.
archive.org/details/fathersofthechur009510mbp

Coming to the 11th century, the Church reformer, St. Peter Damian, Doctor of the Church, speaking “On the Privilege of the Roman Church,” says (December 1059 A.D.):

My dear friends, in your charity you should know that I did not come here [to Milan] to promote the honor of the Roman Church but to seek your glory and, if you will allow, to provided for you, with His help, salvation, and the grace that is in Christ.

Why should it need honor from an insignificant man like me, when it received praise and honor from the lips of the very Savior Himself?

Is there a province throughout all the kingdoms of the earth that is found exempt from its authority, at whose will heaven itself is bound and loosed….

Some King or Emperor, or a mere man of whatever station, as he saw fit or found it in his power, prescribed the rights of the special privileges of all the honors of a patriarch, a metropolitan primacy, the episcopal sees, and the dignity of the churches of every rank.

But only he who granted to the blessed custodian of the keys to eternal life the powers of earthly and heavenly dominion founded the Roman Church and built it on the rock of faith that would soon emerge.

It was no ordinary earthly utterance, but the Word by whom heaven and earth were made, and through whom finally the elements of all things were structured, who founded the Roman Church. Clearly, it enjoys his privilege and is supported by his authority.

Peter Damian, letter 65:5

The circumstances of this letter are touched upon in the editors introduction:

Pete Damian to the archdeacon Hildebrand. Entitled in the manuscripts, “On the Privilege of the Roman Church,” this letter is a glowing report on Damian’s legation to Milan, undertaken at the command of Pope Nicholas II.

While the main issue at stake in this mission was the subsidiary position of Milan relative to the Roman Church, as Damian saw it, other problems were also urgent. Damian had to deal with a weak archbishop, with the Patarins, and with a married and simonist clergy. His sermon, included in this report, was addressed to the first problem; the oaths elicited, and the penances ordained, refer to the last.

Peter Damian: Letters 61-90 (Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation), Owen J. Blum (Translator), 1992, Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 0813207509, vol. 3, p. 27 (letter appears in full on pp. 24-39).

amazon.com/Peter-Damian-Letters-Medieval-Continuation/dp/0813207509

 

[cazayoux]

Do all of the various EO denominations share a common theology? If so, what enforces that theology?

Theology was not the reason for the split.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
The great Eastern Schism must not be conceived as the result of only one definite quarrel. It is not true that after centuries of perfect peace, suddenly on account of one dispute, nearly half of Christendom fell away. Such an event would be unparalleled in history, at any rate, unless there were some great heresy, and in this quarrel there was no heresy at first, nor has there ever been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith. It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology.

 

[With_Questions]

Theology was not the reason for the split.

That is not my question?

My question is this.

Do all 17 or so Orthodox denominations share a common theology. If so, what enforces this commonality?

I guess I am assuming that if there is nothing that ties them all together that over time they would become theologically different.

 

[cazayoux]

That is not my question?

My question is this.

Do all 17 or so Orthodox denominations share a common theology. If so, what enforces this commonality?

I guess I am assuming that if there is nothing that ties them all together that over time they would become theologically different.

I can’t indicate whether or not they share the same theology today.
But there are three options.

1 - One or more of the EO church theologies have diverged.
2 - Their theology hasn’t changed
3 - Their theology has changed with all in sync

What can be ascertained from each option.
1 - Obviously no one church has jurisdiction over others
2 - Coming to agreement between the EO church has not been used.
3 - We still can’t say whether this would be due to agreement or supreme jurisdiction of one of the EO churches.

This is definitely worth my time to investigate.

Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

I did find this snipit.

The various local churches within the Orthodox Church are distinct in terms of administration and local culture, but for the most part exist in full communion with one another, with exceptions such as lack of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) and the Moscow Patriarchate (the Orthodox Church of Russia) dating from the 1920s and due to the subjection of the latter to the hostile soviet regime. However, attempts at reconciliation are being made between the ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate with the ultimate purpose of reunification. Further tensions exist in the philosophical differences between the New Calendarists and the Moderate Old Calendarists.

Now that I think about it, I do hope they mend their fences and return to a full communion with each other.
This might lead to a re-communion with Rome.

I wonder … if the EO and Rome would regain communion, what would protestants think of it?

What I’ve found so far is that the EO unity is for the most part there (save the comments on the Russian Orthodox Church), but I still haven’t investigated the theological differences, if there are any.

It still seems that the difference within the EO is a jurisdictional issue more than a theological issue.
I’ll keep looking.

Cheers!

michel

 

[Contarini]

You are right … ‘union with’ might not have been the proper words to convey the thought.
Maybe I should have said that all Christian rites recognize the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome.

The EO churches each, individually, do not recognize a higher jurisdiction than their own. (not Rome, not each other, not even Constantinople)

michel

And why is that an issue?

What exactly do you mean by “jurisdiction”? Was the primacy of Rome in the early Church jurisdictional? Why is jurisdictional supremacy essential to unity?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Do all of the various EO denominations share a common theology? If so, what enforces that theology?

They share common dogmas. There are certainly different schools of theology within Orthodoxy, as within Catholicism, and some theological emphases are more prominent in certain jurisdictions than in others (for instance, you are more likely to find “Eucharistic ecclesiology” among the Russians than among the Greeks). But they confess the same articles of faith, if that’s what you are asking. And if you want theological uniformity–there is far more of it among the Orthodox than among Catholics. (To my mind this is not necessarily an argument in favor of the Orthodox–but your mileage may differ.)

As to what “enforces” this common faith–it’s “enforced” by their common adherence to the teachings of the Ecumenical Councils and certain later synods of somewhat lesser authority. This is a matter of consensus and agreement. If one Orthodox jurisdiction were to abandon the common faith, it would no longer be regarded as Orthodox. If you mean something more than this by “enforcement,” perhaps you could explain what.

Edwin

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Check out these general references,folks.

The Russian Church and the Papacy, Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900), Ray Ryland (Editor), 2002, Catholic Answers, ISBN 1888992298

shop.catholic.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.exe/online-store/scstore/p-CB266.html?L+scstore+kdml0686ff685268+1221977761

books.google.com/books?id=6UNhAAAACAAJ&dq=%22russian+church+and+the+papacy%22

“Search inside” and short editorial review here:
amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298

The above work is an abridgment to Soloviev’s long out of print, “Russia and the Universal Church.”
books.google.com/books?id=QcVrAAAAIAAJ&q=%22Russia+and+the+Universal+Church,%22&dq=%22Russia+and+the+Universal+Church,%22&lr=&pgis=1

Excerpts from Russia and the Universal Church.
evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/soloviev.htm

See also these references:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4025875&postcount=10