"One Church, one God" (Jesus, priest, Latter Day Saints, hell)

[michel]

That is what I understand is the meaning of "The holy Catholic Church" in the Apostles creed.

Yet I saw just that notice on the side of a Church of England building just down the road from where I live; next door to that Chuch is a "Latter Day Saints" Church.

The absurdity of the church that divorced itself from the Roman Catholic faith in the 1500s describing itself as part of the Holy Catholic church struck me. There again, I know full well that there is far greater division within Christians.

Can any of you who describe yourselves as "Christians" ever see the Christian faith becoming one again, as it was meant to be ?

[Dunemeister]

Originally, the confession was designed to secure the church's identity against internal and external threats. Churches were springing up all over the place claiming to have had some new revelation or secret insight that would make it a legitimate successor, replacement, or correction of the mainstream church. So there was a need for the church to define itself over against its opponents. Part of what they wanted to emphasize (partly because it was true at the time) was that the legitimate, true church was (1) holy (2) catholic and (3) apostolic. Many of these new churches were licentious, especially with regard to sex, or overly ascetic. By contrast, the church took a more balanced approach that it called holiness. Many of the new churches played themselves off against the mainstream church and were therefore divisive. Over against that, the church defined itself as being catholic, universal. Part of catholicity is also publicness. The church taught the same thing privately and publicly. Many of the new churches taught one thing publicly but another thing privately. The church was "universal" in the sense that they all had the same faith and practice. Lastly, the church was apostolic in the sense that its churches could claim descent from the work of the apostles and their legitimate successors, where legitimacy means that the successor faithfully passed on the faith and practice of the apostle.

All of these terms: holy, catholic, and apostolic, are problematic, not only because the terms have been interpreted differently at different times (even during the united 1st - 10th centuries), but also because the church has almost never satisfied whatever definitions that have been proposed. Whatever else holy means, it also means righteous. Has the church, at any time in her history, been righteous? The word "catholic" means "universal". Yet the church has always harbored great diversity both of opinion and practice. "Apostolic", whatever else it means, also entails deep connections with the original apostles. But the claims of the bishop of Rome to be the successor of Peter, whether that succession was important, and even whether that succession has progressed faithfully, are all highly questionable. It's also true that in each case of schism, each side took the side of the angels, saying that the apostles would have been on their side if they were here to arbitrate.

So yes, there are deep problems. I take comfort in Jesus' high priestly prayer in which he prayed that the church would be united as he was with his Father. I think that the current divisions in the church are a phase that we must work through in order to arrive at the unity for which Christ prayed. We are being forced to wrestle with what it means to be united, and whether a united ecclesiastical structure is necessary for there to be unity. And if it is, how can we reconcile rival ecclesiastical structures in order to re-create that original unity. Whatever form it takes in the end, when that unity is finally achieved, we will be able to say that it wasn't purchased too cheaply (as some say it was under Emperor Constantine).

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by michel

Can any of you who describe yourselves as "Christians" ever see the Christian faith becoming one again, as it was meant to be ?

Definitely, but I don't see it happening until after Christ returns to begin His millennial reign.

[Mister Emu]

Definitely, but I don't see it happening until after Christ returns to begin His millennial reign.

Agreed

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by michel

The absurdity of the church that divorced itself from the Roman Catholic faith in the 1500s describing itself as part of the Holy Catholic church struck me. There again, I know full well that there is far greater division within Christians.

Agreed.... for any other "church" to describe themselves as such besides the Roman Catholic or Orthodox (E & O) seems quite silly.

Can any of you who describe yourselves as "Christians" ever see the Christian faith becoming one again, as it was meant to be ?

I can see East and West coming together, but none of the post-reformation groups.... unity has never been a concern of theirs (IMO) and I don't think that will change.

Peace,
S

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Scott1

Agreed.... for any other "church" to describe themselves as [catholic] besides the Roman Catholic or Orthodox (E & O) seems quite silly.

Again, it depends on what you take "catholic" to mean. To the RCC, it means the church that is submissive to the bishop of Rome. For a person loyal to Jesus but not to Rome to be catholic, she must adopt a different sense of catholic. Usually it involves something like an appeal to an "invisible" church as opposed to an institutional church. Thus people of different institutions can still claim to be "catholic" because they share loyalty to Jesus only not to institutional expressions of Christianity. And who's to say that this alternative understanding isn't correct? Thus Anglicans say that they are "Catholic but not Roman, reformed but not schismatic." We Anglicans are catholic in that we affirm the faith of all those who likewise confess the Ecumenical creeds. Unlike the RCC, all baptized persons of whatever denomination are permitted to share communion with us during worship. It's hard to imagine a stricter sense of catholicity than that.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Again, it depends on what you take "catholic" to mean. To the RCC, it means the church that is submissive to the bishop of Rome.

NO it does not. Catholic means what it meant from the begining.... just like the Orthodox are "catholic".... they have valid Holy Orders, whereas the CofE does not, hence not "catholic".... just my opinion.... well mine and the Catholic and Orthodox Churches...

Unlike the RCC, all baptized persons of whatever denomination are permitted to share communion with us during worship. It's hard to imagine a stricter sense of catholicity than that.

Again... you folks view the word differently... you can't have communion when your not in communion.... "catholic" does not mean "universal salvation" and everyone gets to take communion... but I digress....back on topic.

[sojourner]

And yet, as I understand it, the Orthodox are closer to full communion with the Anglicans than they are with the Romans...

In what way is the Anglican priesthood invalid? In what way is the episcopacy invalid? When the Great Schism occurred, both the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch excommunicated each other. What's the difference in the Archbishop of Canterbury leaving the jurisdiction of Rome? He's still a duly consecrated bishop in the apostolic succession.

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by sojourner

And yet, as I understand it, the Orthodox are closer to full communion with the Anglicans than they are with the Romans...

You may be right.... I'll ask James the next time we chat... but with ordained women clergy? I REALLY doubt "close" is the right word to use.

In what way is the Anglican priesthood invalid? In what way is the episcopacy invalid? When the Great Schism occurred, both the Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch excommunicated each other. What's the difference in the Archbishop of Canterbury leaving the jurisdiction of Rome? He's still a duly consecrated bishop in the apostolic succession.

On the Nullity of Anglican Orders by Pope Leo XIII: Apostolicae Curae

Reply from the Archbishops of England: Modern History Sourcebook: Archbishops of England: Reply to Leo XIII