In what sense is the Christian Church "one"?

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph. 4: 1-6)

Saint Paul wrote these words to the Church at Ephesus, during his imprisonment in Rome (61-63 A.D.) They follow his plea for unity in Corinthians (ca. 55 A.D.):

Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement. (I Cor. 1: 10)

The words of Paul ring true today for millions of Christians around the world who long for the unity of the Apostolic faith. We, however, are forced to live in practical/realistic terms. The schisms of the ninth-thirteenth centuries, which divided the �one catholic and apostolic Church� of the Ecumenical period, are historical facts, as is the further fragmentation of the Church during the Reformation. Today there are thousands of churches and denominations, all calling themselves Christian.

My question, then, is this: In what sense can we understand the words of the creed-- �one holy catholic and apostolic Church�--today?

There are many different views on how the Church can remain visibly divided yet essentially whole. Certain Anglican theologians have proposed something that has come to be known as �branch theory� (implying that each �true� church holds a part of the message (refer to I Cor. 12). Other theologians propose that logical justifications are unnecessary, for the Church, though it remains divided according to its--if I may borrow a term used by the Roman theologians regarding the Eucharist--accidental properties, is, in its essential properties, undivided. Regardless, the division of Christendom has caused wars, persecutions, and intellectual discord down through the centuries--hardly the goal of the Christian message.

So I restate my question : In what sense can we understand the words of the creed--�one holy catholic and apostolic Church�--today?

Cheers.

-Akolouthos

BTW, please, no matter what your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) may be, feel free to engage in this conversation. The broader the range of critical/analytical thought that is brought into this discussion, the more likely an understanding, of some sort, may be achieved.

Edited by Akolouthos

Originally posted by Maju There can't be one faith: two people = two opinions. The only way you can get al people to think the same is by killing them: that way they don't think anymore.

I agree with you. There are divisions--very real divisions. These divisions are obvious and visible. I am not so much speaking of an obvious perceivable unity as an underlying essential unity. I completely subscribe to the theory (and please forgive me if I am misreading you here) that every individual perceives circumstances, emotions, ideas, etc. differently. Hence, the question is "In what sense is the Christian Church 'one'? " If you like, it might be better phrased (in fact it would be better phrased thus: "In what sense can the Christian Church be considered one?" Describing how it is divided is simple; the divisions are obvious, very visible realities. Describing in what sense it maintains its essential, and, according to Scripture and the Patristic tradition, necessary unity, is a bit more difficult.

-Akolouthos

P.S. I don't support killing people in order to stop them from thinking...not yet anyway .

Originally posted by Maju There's an underlying essential unit but has nothing to do with Christianity: it's the essential unit of All.

Then why don't you apply that underlying essential unity (of all) to Christianity, as per the question ?

-Akolouthos

I believe the Christian Church can be justly considered as one despite its institutional divisions. All the major Christian Churches still abide to the fundamental principles laid down by the Church Fathers. Those are to be found at the Nicene Creed, that christians all around the world utter at every mass.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is the most widely accepted creed in the Christian Church. Since its original formulation it continues to be used in the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Protestant churches.

Note that the modern version is in the plural like the Nicene version, although it is otherwise the Nicene-Constantinopolitan text, the Church changed it to first-person singular. In the west, this change was reversed, but Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians did not make this second change. Therefore;

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty

Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,

God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,

begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.

Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:

by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried.

On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures

he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,

And his kingdom will have no end

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life,

Who proceeds from the Father (and from the Son) 

With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified

He has spoken through the Prophets.

We believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

We look for the resurrection of the dead,

and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Of course, when we look down in History and see the divisions, the bloodshed and the wars between different sects of Christianity, we can suspect of this unity in the real life. We can discuss about the legitimacy of the Papacy of the bishop of Rome, about the ordination of women, the use of contraceptives, the filioque clause and so on, but I believe the differences are essentially historical and political since the core beliefs are and must be the same. Even doctrinal differences can be overlapped if there's enough good will from each side and the recognition of diversity within unity.

Past generations have failed to make Christian Ecumenism an every day reality, but I hope and I am convinced that the future generations will succed in making the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church a more palpable institutional reality.

 

Originally posted by Komnenos The problem with the Nicene Creed is of course that it is not an expression of the one and pure doctrinal truth, inspired by whoever might have inspired it, but the result of very profane political schemings. It is an reflection of the power constellations in the higher clergy of the Church and in the Imperial administration in 325, and of the personal prejudices of Constantine I who asserted not a little pressure on the Council. And all other Councils that formulated similar fundamental doctrines decided for very similar reasons. To reject their findings would not be rejecting any divine truth but simply asserting one's minority right to a different interpretation. None of variants of the Christian belief that were dominant at one point in the history of Christianity can claim the monopoly of truth, but when they did could only do so as they had the power to enforce their dogmas over others.

Though political manipulation was a factor at almost all the Ecumenical Councils, I think it does a disservice to some of the brighest thinkers of the formative centuries of the Christian Church to say assert politics was the sole consideration, or even, for that matter, the most important. How, if that were so, would you account for the vindication of the icons? They were opposed violently by several emperors, the icon lovers were persecuted, yet still, after (if memory serves me correctly) the seventh Ecumenical council they were accepted.

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Akolouthos I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Eph. 4: 1-6) Saint Paul wrote these words to the Church at Ephesus, during his imprisonment in Rome (61-63 A.D.) They follow his plea for unity in Corinthians (ca. 55 A.D.): Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement. (I Cor. 1: 10) The words of Paul ring true today for millions of Christians around the world who long for the unity of the Apostolic faith.

Amen Akolouthos, unity is a worthy goal that Christianity should strive for as stressed in the passages you have quoted from the Word of God. However the only basis of "unity" must be based on the teachings of Jesus found in the New Testament, the Word of God. Jesus also like Paul addressed the issue of unity. Jesus, the Lord said that "unity" must be based and have as its foundation, in the Word of God! Thus Jesus is very specific about where unity is found. Note what the Saviour said in JOHN 17:17-21. Here is the passage,

Quote:   17 Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, even so I sent them into the world. 19 For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. 20 Neither for these only do I pray, but for those also who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you sent me.

As we can see, unity is possible but only if our beliefs come from the Word of God only. We must get rid of the manmade doctrines that have been added over the centuries. All who are willing to follow the Word of God and drop manmade ideas can be unified as Jesus said on His Word. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostle Paul to write that if the Word alone is preached as Jesus said, then one would have sound doctrine and the truth, please note the point in 2 Timothy 4:1-4. Here is a quote of the passage,

1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables

As we can see from the passage Akolouthos, Christians are to preach the Word, whether it is popular or not. The Word is used interchangably with "sound doctrine" and with the "truth". Thus anything NOT found in the Word of God is an addition that is not sound and not truth. Thus clearly "unity" is found when we all decide to follow the Word of God, and that obviously means very great changes and the elimination of many manmade doctrines. How else Akolouthos can we be of the "same mind" as stated by the Apostle Paul as he wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:10? However as we can see the passage I quoted above, the problem is that people would rather have "itching ears" and have manmade doctrines instead of follow the truth. That unfortunately is the condition of the denominational world today. Unity is not on the basis of diversity, for that is not true unity at all as we know. Unity is thus possible if those who call themselves followers of Jesus are willing to do what it takes and follow the Word of God alone. Only in that sense, can the church of Christ be one.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Richard XIII Protestant propaganda. Btw I believe in God.

Hi Richard a statement of opinion means nothing as you know. The quotations of Akolouthos and me where from the Word of God that stesses unity. Why did you not state in what sense the church is one? At lease we know where authority is found. Here is a quote not from protestantism, catholism or orthodoxism, but the Word of God, which was written before all three, in 1 John 2:1-6. Here is the quote,

1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6 He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked.

As we can see, the Holy Spirit clearly moved the Apostle John to write that we come to "know"  God, Jesus, is because "we" keep His commandments, otherwise we are a liar and the "truth" is not in us. Notice the emphasis in the passage above is that we keep the Word which is the Truth to "know" God.

Edited by Cuauhtemoc

Originally posted by Richard XIII My friend, the Bible must be read methaphorically.

So must the Koran and the core Buddhist Sutras.

Right?

But must any of them be read?

Yes, I didn't read Buddhist Sutras. Koran was for me inadequate for globalisation but i don't understood a lot of things and maybe i'm wrong.