DanielRB,
Sorry, I do not see it say "Christ is the Church."
that is why you really don't believe or accept the Nicene Creed as written and understood by those who wrote it. That is the understanding of that phrase. I don't believe in an organization. I believe in Christ, but Christ is also the Church, He is Head over the Body, His Body of which I and all those before and present are members. It is Trinitarian and Incarnational. Ontological and organic, not organizational.
That would be like accepting the Constitution of the United States, assuming you are a US citizen, but then saying that one or more of terms does not mean what they stated it meant. We would have real anarchy in the US if each citizen could interpret the constitution to his own liking.
Can you please provide quotes that support your understanding of the word "Catholic"? (This is a genuine question--I'm not questioning if you can or not, I just would like for us to see what they said.
A little background which developed that understanding.
Paul in Titus 1:5-7 gives us the understanding of the organizational structure of the Church. The terms Bishop and presbyter are used interchangeably in scripture and in the early Church with the excetion of Ignatius. Secondly, Paul makes a clear distinction between the work of the Apostles and those they appointed in each established church. This structure is determined by the nature of the Church as Eucharistic, The Body of Christ. Two early documents bear this out, I Clement and the Apology of St Justin.
Clement describes them as a contrast to the OT worship. He portrays four elements in every Church, bishop, (high priest) priests (presbyters), deacons (levites) and laity.
Then we come to St Ignatius who was the first to use the term "catholic". What is important here is that he also decribes it in the context of the Eucharist. Care to keep ONE Eucharist, because there is one flesh, ONE Lord to unite us by His Blood, one bishop, one sanctuary.
It is from this description that he uses the term catholic. The Church, the Body of Christ, which has all the elements mentioned above, centered on ONE Body, ONE Eucharist, is catholic. Meaning in the Greek, one, whole, complete, lack nothing. this is his decription of the congregation, headed by the bishop the earthly presence of Christ at the Alter.
this also stems from the understanding that the Church is Trinitarian. That we, as individual members through the initiation of baptism, are ONE Body. We are united IN Christ, we are united in faith and the life of the Church with all others of same faith, the same Eucharist. Again, many is one. Jesus' prayer for the Church in John 17:20-23. Clearly as the Three Persons, many are of ONE Essence, the Trinity, so is each member of the Body, individual but of ONE Body.
Without looking up the quote, but the phrase, that where the Bishop is there is the Church.
Also, after granting authority to the Apostles, thus the Church in Matt 18:20 the verse is depicting the structure of the Church, in Eucharist assembly.
To give you the opposite understanding of why RCC is not catholic. When the thelogy is that the Pope is head of an organization called a church, it does nor represent the Body of Christ. Further, the concept of that organization is that all the congregations are parts, pieces of that whole, called the RCC Church. Thus the Trinity is destroyed, and it becomes molinistic. The Three Persons are parts of the Essence, not the whole, the fullness of the plentitude of the Trinity.
That is the understanding of the Church by the Orthodox and has been from the beginning.
The Church is ONE, in that Christ has one body of people that are his, not many. The Church is Holy, in that Christ has cleansed it from sin. The Church is Apostolic, in that it follows the faith laid down by the Apostles.
The Church is not holy because Christ cleansed it from sin, but because it is Christ. Christ is Holy. It is enlived by the Holy Spirit which is Holy. It is Holy in its tie with the heavenly Church. The members of that Church are sinners, full of sin and in constant need for repentance and forgiveness. Does your church follow the faith as established by the Apostles? Has it been established by them, or has it been interpreted by many others interpretation?
That is your definition of the terms. It is not the understanding of the writers. The saints of old and all the saints since are corporately infallible.
Again, please provide some quotes.
the practice of the principle was done at the First Ecumenical Council. Definitions of the Church are not innovations, but definitions of what has been believed, but not clearly defined. This principle was later spelled out by St Vincent of Lerin in 434 in his Commonitorium. The phrase which I have used often, "now in the Catholic Churchg itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has bveen belieeved everywhere, always and by everyone.
Also St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18.23. "Catholicity is self-evident. It is reasonable to add that an essential precondition for that lfie, for that presence of the Lord, is that the Apostolic Doctirne tested, lived adn taught by the people of God, is held as the rule of faith.
The use of Councils is a development of the meeting of bishops to decide on many issues. It has no structure, no organization. It became simply an instrument for making common decisions for the expression of the unity of the faith.
That unity can be discerned two ways and both have been exercised within the Church over time. The Bishops can carry the will of the people or the people will recieve the will of the Council. Without getting into a very long explanation, it is the rule of faith as held by the faithful over time, or the infallibility of the ecclessia that accepts actions, recieves actions of bishops and councils. It is that ONE faith as expressed in the Oneness of Christ, as that having been delievered to the saints.
I disagree. The people of God, individually and collectively have erred and will err. Christ is the head, he clearly tells us the truth, and has never erred, but we, in response to his command, can and do err--both individually and collectively
Beginning with scripture Eph 1:22-23 The Father hath put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is His Body, the fulness of Him that filleth all in all.
That does not give any leeway in that the Church is other than Christ Himself. We are members, and members can and do err, but the Church, by any biblical definition cannot err, since it is Christ.
Also a building under construction. Eph 2:19-22 Here it is again the same description with the addition of ALL the separate building blocks being individual believers. Any believer can become rotten, can become weak, but the Chruch does not err because one member errs or even a whole section of the building, The building still stands.
Take John 15:1-8 where the Church can be described as the trunk and the branches. Members can err, several branches can err, and be cut off, but the tree does not err, does not cease to produce good fruit.
Even I Tim 3:15 That thou mayest know how thou aught to behave in the house of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth. Christ as a Son over His own House are we Heb 3:6.
Then Eph 1:10, That in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, in Him. That Church is Christ. Christ is gathering all things unto Himself.
From these texts the early Church understood that the Church is Christ. It has never been understood as an earthly organization. That is a wholly RCC adoption and has been transferred to the Protestant denominations. It is quite simple to understand that organization made up of sinful people will err. But the Church has never been understood this way. Christ told his disciples that He was the Good Shepherd John 10:16, that as the Good Shepherd, had to bring in also those sheep who were not of this fold, so that there might be one flock and ONE Shepherd.
I disagree. I don't think that the Church must have this degree of perfection in order to exist.
Well, that is because of your understanding of what is the Church. In this definition, the Christ is not Truth. He can have many truths, many variations and it does not matter, as long as there is some connection whatever that might be in your definition. Organizations err, individuals err, but Christ cannot err. It is His Body. This is not an abstract concept. It is ontological. We not only dwell within that Body, but we are also indwelt with the Holy Spirit. There is that Trinitarian concept of Unity, wholeness, Oneness.
I understand it fits well with the protestant melieu of so many different variations and all say they are in the Body of Christ.
I like to use this example in the extreme. I am going to assume that you are familiar with the NFL and how it is organized. There is an established membership. Not just any team can be a member.
On the other hand, if one team, or several teams play by different understandings of the rules within that membership, can you see the chaotic mess that would result. There is unity in sameness.
Also, assume that I establish a team(s) a league in fact, and set it up precisely the very same as the NFL, use the very same rules and regulations. Does this make me an NFL team?
Rightglory, please consider this: it is your understanding that the Orthodox Church is, corporately, infallible and that the Church must be infallible. You might be correct, you might be in error--because you are not infallible. You might have a great deal of support for your position. But in the end, it is what you (and other Orthodox) believe.
Yes, it is what the Holy Spirit convicts one of relative to faith. It is a profound decision on faith. It is precisely why I am not Protestant, could not be RCC either and why I am not Mormon, Moslem or any other faith.
Why do you think we as humans have established multitude of religions, of faiths.
Yet the Gospel and the Church was established by Christ, He is that Head, it is He that guards that Church, which has historical proof of its existance, has historical authenticity of that preservantion of the Gospel unchanged from the beginning.
Rome has changed drastically since its departure. Changes in Tradition, in doctrine, in their scholastic interpretations of scripture in developing and making innovative changes which have never been part of the Church during the first 1000 years when they were part of that Church.
Then we have protestants, by the hundred different variations, where the change of understandings from one reformer to the next, none seem to hold any measure of Truth, in that they change within their own life time. Can that be the Gospel once given, to all, for all. The Gospel is universal. It was meant for all to be unified as ONE, not being parts, all with many different forms of faith. That is why I am Orthodox which, yes, is my faith decision, has the plentitude of the fullness of Christ as His Church.
