One True Church

[paleodoxy]

Ok, so, I'm becoming Orthodox (as you all know by now). If I didn't believe (in some sense)about the Orthodox Church what is expressed in the title of this thread, I would have no reason (my personal attitude) to join Orthodoxy.

My question is: how, precisely, is this true (per the majority standard)?

It seems to me that there are two ways of looking at this:

(1) Orthodoxy is the "true" Church because it preserves the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition and Ecumenical Faith handed down from Christ. Whereas other Christian ecclesiastical traditions have preserved only most or part of that Tradition.

Or...

(2) Once a group of Christians separate from the One Church, it ceases to be a part of Christ's Body institutionally/ecclesiastically speaking.

I have heard Orthodox answers that vary between these two responses. Is there one that has historically been favored over the other? What is the "official" position (if one exists).

Is Rome an "arm" or a "leg" of Christ that has preserved much of (but not all of) the Tradition (as Orthodoxy has), or did the Great Schism cause it to cease to be a Body part.

Thanks!

[Shubunkin]

If I didn't believe the EO was the True Church, I certainly wouldn't be here. Years of preparation has brought me to it. This I could not explain in an easy way here. Historically, it seems to me it is also supported. Originality is important. Add-ons, alterations, ego, interpretations and all that were too much a part of Christianity in my former churches. To be sure, each and every one made me think they were the "true faith" and they were the only ones that possessed the truth. Well, by history they all went back only 100 or so years, and then the last church, the Lutheran, only back to 1500. I can't say what I think of the Lutherans changing even what Luther said in his writings, other than that is also sheer ego.

[kamikat]

Personally, I believe it's both 1 and 2, not either/or. When Rome left the Church, she had nothing to prevent her adding to doctrine. For a while, they maintained Truth, but as time went on, more and more things were added, so that the Roman church no longer the church of the Apostles.

[paleodoxy]

Well, I don't think it can be 1 AND 2 simultaneously. I probably didn't express it very well, so let me try once more:

The two approaches should be contrasted as...

(1) Rome and Protestantism (fill in the blank) are still parts of Christ's Body (an arm, a leg, etc.), they have simply been separated and removed from the remainder of the Body (Orthodoxy) which has internally preserved the fullness of the Christian Faith. All schisms and separations from Orthodoxy naturally, then, express a less than full or complete understanding of the faith.

Or...

(2) When a church separates from the Orthodox Church, it ceases to be a part of Christ's Body altogether. It not only fails to preserve the faith "once for all delivered" in the fullest sense, but actually ceases to be a Body part.

Another way of asking the question would be: do non-Orthodox Christians really partake of Christ in the Eucharist in any sense at all? Either they do (but not in the best or fullest sense), or they don't at all.

My problem with the second scenario is that schism ceased to be schism. If we say that they cease to be a Body part upon departure from the Orthodox Church, then what is the offense? Christ really hasn't been rent assunder at all! The Body is always preserved whole and intact in the Orthodoxy, so how can we speak in any sense of the offense of dividing Christ?

See what I'm saying?

[xristos.anesti]

Famous Orthodox maxim -

We know where the Church is,
but we do not know where the Church is not.

To us - therefore - it is rather simple - we are not in communion with those out of communion -

what they have and how they have it - is not our to measure nor judge - it is between them and God -

our duty is to live according to what we were given - preserving it and passing it on without addition nor deletion for the glory of God and salvation of souls, in prayer through body and blood via the mysteries - and this is between us and God.


John answered Him, saying, “Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us.”

But Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in My name, because you belong to Christ, assuredly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward. (according to Mark 9, 38-41)

[rusmeister]

Ditto on what X.A. said.

[Shubunkin]

I also agree with xristos. I thought you meant which church has the full truth. That would be the Eastern Orthodox.

[paleodoxy]

Famous Orthodox maxim -

We know where the Church is,
but we do not know where the Church is not.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

[Protoevangel]

paleodoxy,

Read this book: The Non-Orthodox (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/status.aspx). You can download it to print it out, or you can also read it online. It is very well presented, with tons of Patristic support. It was very helpful for me.

[Shubunkin]

Also this quote:

"You ask, will the heterodox be saved... Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins..." - St. Theophan

[Theophorus]

"For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth [struggleth], but of God that showeth mercy" (Rom. 9:15-16).

"For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? Do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth" (1 Cor. 5:12-13)

[Protoevangel]

Good answers cygne and Theophorus , but if I understand paleodoxy's question, he is asking more about the ecclesiological state of the non-Orthodox, not necessarily their soteriological state.

[paleodoxy]

That's correct, Protoevangel. I'm focusing on their ecclesiastical status.

And thank you for the recommended reading. I'll take advantage of that.

[kamikat]

Actually, it's still 1 and 2, as the way you wrote it. While they are not officially part of the Church, they can still be teaching bits and pieces of the Truth. Afterall, all mainstream Christian denominations proclaim Jesus' divinity. If they had no truth, that would not be so. As to the Eucharist, who can say? I know that communion was different when I attended a Prot. church that felt it was a remembernce only, compared to when I was a Catholic. On the other hand, the communion I recieved as a Catholic can not compare to the experience as an Orthodox Christian. Only God can say exactly what the differences were and why they were different.

[buzuxi02]

delete

[buzuxi02]

Both 1 & 2 are correct. They deal with two different ends of the spectrum.

It is true that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith handed down once for all in the beginning.

And its also true that there is only a falling away from the one faith, not semi- Orthodox nor 2 lungs nor earthly invisible churches which make one church (pantheistic ecclesiology).

Hence ST Theophan's compassionate response on the non-Orthodox and his warning for the Orthodox.

[Theophorus]

That's correct, Protoevangel. I'm focusing on their ecclesiastical status.


How would the "ecclesiastical" status be separated from the laity?

[Protoevangel]

How would the "ecclesiastical" status be separated from the laity?
Your Romans quote speaks about whom God will have mercy, not about what makes one part of the Church.

And your 1 Corinthians quote explains that we judge those within the Church, but not those without. This was indeed a good and relevant quote. One which in fact shows the oft-quoted "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where the Church is not." to be nonsensical, for if the statement of Paul has any meaning at all, we must know where the Church is and is not.

So I apologize if I seemed to completely disrespect your post. I did not mean to do that with either your post or cygne's.

[paleodoxy]

Both 1 & 2 are correct. They deal with two different ends of the spectrum.

It is true that Orthodoxy is the fullness of the faith handed down once for all in the beginning.

And its also true that there is only a falling away from the one faith, not semi- Orthodox nor 2 lungs nor earthly invisible churches which make one church (pantheistic ecclesiology).

Hence ST Theophan's compassionate response on the non-Orthodox and his warning for the Orthodox.

I don't see how 1 and 2 can both be correct as I have framed the options. In the first option, they are separated body parts; in the latter, they are not body parts at all.

Here's my issue: if the Orthodox Church really believed that being a Roman Catholic or a Protestant was the same as being an apostate (not in the Church at all), they wouldn't (a) make exceptions for marriages to those outside the Orthodox Church, and (b) except (in many, if not most cases) Trinitarian baptisms from other churches.

This doesn't diminish at all the East's rightful claim to having preserved the fulness of the faith once for all delivered. I would not refer to Catholic or Protestant bodies as "invisible" churches. I would say there is only one, earthly, visible Body of Christ. Loosely, these body parts are held together by the sacrament of Trinitarian baptism and the sacrament of the Eucharist, in spite of the very real schisms and separations that have occurred in the history of the Church.

The separated churches have an OBLIGATION to seek unity by returning to the Orthodox fold. If we deny that they are body parts, or branches on the vine, or branches in the olive tree, however, how is it even possible to speak of "re-engrafting" due to a schism? What's the difference between Roman Catholicism and Islam? The difference is that the RCC is in schism, while the same could not be said for Islam. Therefore, the RCC (and Protestant churches) possess something that Islam and Hinduism do not -- a visible ecclesiological status (on some level).

I would want to speak in terms of varying degrees or levels of separation, with apostasy as the ultimate falling away. Trinitarian Baptism is the minimum requirement for constituting and retaining the status of a visible ecclesiastical body of believers.

[buzuxi02]

The Orthodox Church is the church of the Fathers, there simply is no other.
The Orthodox church does not recognize baptisms performed outside her, only upon reception into the Church does a heterodox ritual become full. That which was an empty ritual the Church makes it her own and makes full and complete, but never before.

Now reception of the heterodox varies based upon form and understanding. In the strictest sense the form is triple immersion with a trnitarian formula. Copts and nestorians can be recieved with simply a confession of faith and denunciation of heresies. This is because they follow the same form and have an identical understanding of the Trinity, both accept the first two ecumenical councils they were present and hold to the same creed. Absolutely no variation in their understanding, including same interpretation of the articles of the creed.
RC and protestants need to be chrismated unless ekonomia is used towards an RC catechumen. Bishops can also require baptism altogether.

Thre is no branch theory in Orthodoxy. A heterodox can be a christian ( not in the fullest sense) but not a member of the church. Clerics outside the church are devoid of grace. The Church are God's people centered around a right believing bishop with apostolic succession(and all that encompasses) gathered together to celebrate the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the glue which holds together all the "parts" (laity) of the One Body. (1 cor 10.17.
There is no Eucharist apart from the bishop. And there can be no bishop apart from the Church from whom he recieves his office. Its an office within the church, it does not exist outside it. And there is no apostolic sucession without right-belief.

[The Virginian]

Ok, so, I'm becoming Orthodox (as you all know by now). If I didn't believe (in some sense)about the Orthodox Church what is expressed in the title of this thread, I would have no reason (my personal attitude) to join Orthodoxy.

My question is: how, precisely, is this true (per the majority standard)?

It seems to me that there are two ways of looking at this:

(1) Orthodoxy is the "true" Church because it preserves the fullness of the Apostolic Tradition and Ecumenical Faith handed down from Christ. Whereas other Christian ecclesiastical traditions have preserved only most or part of that Tradition.

Or...

(2) Once a group of Christians separate from the One Church, it ceases to be a part of Christ's Body institutionally/ecclesiastically speaking.

I have heard Orthodox answers that vary between these two responses. Is there one that has historically been favored over the other? What is the "official" position (if one exists).

Is Rome an "arm" or a "leg" of Christ that has preserved much of (but not all of) the Tradition (as Orthodoxy has), or did the Great Schism cause it to cease to be a Body part.

Thanks!

A problem with any groups separation from the "Church" is: How does one separate from the Church? As a part of the body a leprous a human arm is still a human arm, only leprous. And as such, it ceases to function as an arm should.
I think that Rome , although adulterated, or, diseased by heretical doctrine, and thus ceasing to function as a part of the Body of Christ, i.e., propagating the fullness of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, is still a part of the Body proper. Because of the disease of it's doctrine....
The presence of the Holy Spirit in the collective decisions of the Fathers of the Church, is what has ensured the continuance of the Apostolic Tradition. I.E., the True Church. The teachings of the Church as she continues is just as our Lord's, they are hard sayings, not uttered or tempered by the changing temperatures of the social conscious.
Ahh, but I see that I wax wordy, forgive me!