[Freeptube]

That's what I love about Orthodoxy. It's roots go all the way back to the beginning.

You are right!

Here:

2. Origin and revelation of the Church

Many of us have the notion that the Church was created on the day of Pentecost, that is to say, when the Holy Spirit descended into the hearts of the Apostles. And of course we could say that Pentecost is the birthday of the Church from the point of view that it was then that the Church became the Body of Christ. It acquired substance. However, the beginning and existence of the Church is to be found in the time before Pentecost.
Professor John Karmiris states that there are three phases in the emergence of the Church. The first is the creation of the angels and men, the second is the life of Adam in Paradise, but also the period of the Old Testament, and the third phase of the Church is the incarnation of Christ. Indeed the full revelation of the Church will take place at the Second Coming of Christ
Let us look more analytically at these periods of the Church, for then in some way we can grasp the mystery of the Church and gain a deeper awareness of our being and scope.



a) The beginning of the Church

It is a teaching of the holy Fathers that with the creation of the angels we have the emergence of the first Church. And it can be seen in the writings of the Fathers of the Church that the angels too are members of the Church. Moreover, God the Father is the creator of "all things visible and invisible". Among the invisible are listed the angels, who sing in praise of God. In the book of Job this witness is preserved: "when the stars were born all the angels in a loud voice sang in praise of me" (Job 38,7). Thus, before the creation of the sensible world there were angels, who sang in praise of God for the creation. And, to be sure, this means that the angels were the first to be created by God.
The fact that the angels are members of the Church, since they sing in praise of God, appears in many troparia. I would like to mention one of these: "By Thy Cross, O Christ, one flock came into being, of angels and men, and one Church: heaven and earth rejoice; O Lord, glory to Thee". Angels and men belong to the same Flock, to the same Church after the incarnation of Christ. But this means that this unity also existed in the life before the fall. In the teaching of the holy Fathers it is clear that the `last things' are like the first and like those in between, because we cannot speak of eschatology apart from the life of man before the fall and apart from the deification of the saints already even before the Second Coming of Christ. Besides, according to the teaching of St. Gregory Palamas and other saints, the vision of the uncreated Light is the substance of the good things to come, this very Kingdom of God. by Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos in The Mind of the Orthodox Church

[refsherne]

Protestantism are not churches they are heresies and are cast off from the vine (or should we say there mother the RC was). The branch theory is heresy and what the said bishop of the OP claimed fits the bill. Any departure from Orthodoxy withers and dies. The entire tree is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which is the Orthodox Church and there is only a falling away from that tree, a cutting off (anathemas).

When the Vatican last year declared that the Anglican church should not be called a church I reacted against this. It is simply pointless to make such statements. I wrote a letter to them (a secretary merely acknowledged its receipt, but the Anglicans to whom I sent a copy wrote a very nice letter back!). This is the main thrust of the letter, referring to their "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church" particularly about 'apostolic succession':

That's what I love about Orthodoxy. It's roots go all the way back to the beginning.

Indeed, to sum up here:

The entire tree is the Church, being deification in the Angel of the Lord, the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ. This does indeed go back to Paradise: the life of Adam and Eve is this same Orthodox Faith known in deification. "The Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim 2:19).

Richard
PS I have upload the letter I sent (but removed my address!)
PPS I originally tried to post this in mid-January, but I was told it had been sent to be moderated. Having not heard anything since, I thought I would try it again!

[JessiPollo]

Dear Richard and others,

I find some of the aspects and implications of your above post troubling. In a (reasonable) attempt to be compassionate, as well as mindful of the working of God, you seem to set forward an understanding of ordination that downplays -- to my mind significantly -- the reality of the charism of ordination in the laying on of hands. Of course it is the grace of God that effects an ordination, as it is God's grace that is present and active in all sacramental activity. This is, in a sense, a truism of sacramental life: it goes without saying. It cannot be seen to negate the sacramental act by which that grace is 'incarnated' into the present moment, in due and reverential order. It is likewise the grace of God that effects the reality of communication in Christ's body and blood at the Eucharist, not the motions of the Liturgy or the acts / words of the priest; nonetheless, the Eucharist cannot be extricated from this liturgical act, from these words, from this priesthood. God's grace is not a generic divine charge. Sacramental existence is life bound up in the full implications of the incarnation; namely, in this context, that God's grace comes in and through creation in the sacramental mysteries of and for creation. The bread, the words, are essential ingredients for the communion in grace of the holy Eucharist. Similarly, the hands, the words -- these are essential ingredients in the charism of grace of divine ordination. This is precisely why the service of ordination stresses the double aspect: it is through the laying-on of hands that the divine grace of God is enjoined upon the one being ordained. The bishop is not praying 'first A, but not really B, actually B' in these prayers; he is praying a single whole, in which the grace of God is active in and through the laying on of hands -- the particular charism of the bishop himself, living in God's grace.

The 'true Church' (as such is the title of this thread) is one in which the fullness of this sacramental reality is embraced. To attempt to disassociate God's grace from the incarnational experience of God sacramentally present in creation, as ordained in his sacraments, is to wrest apart this experience at its very heart.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[JessiPollo]

Dear Richard and others,

I forgot that I also wanted to comment on another section of your recent post; but as the topic is somewhat distinct, it is perhaps fortunate that I neglected to raise it in my above response. The section I have in mind is this:

Indeed, to sum up here:

The entire tree is the Church, being deification in the Angel of the Lord, the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ. This does indeed go back to Paradise: the life of Adam and Eve is this same Orthodox Faith known in deification. "The Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim 2:19).

It is not possible to define Church as deification. Deification is an ascetical act, or rather, the fruit of ascetical life, that brings one into communion with Christ himself. It is not a thing, or a group, or a community, or an identity: it is an act of communion with and in Christ. The Church is this Christ's body, which feeds and fosters this process of deifying life through Christ's presence in his creation.

The moment we start calling the Church deification, Christ is fundamentally depersonalised.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[jeaccatty]

In addition to Fr Matthew's comments, I would also like to emphasize that the incarnate Christ is not an angel. The angels are a distinct creation and are by definition non-corporeal, thus it is not possible for an angel to be incarnate and remain an angel - it would be a violation of his very nature. The Incarnate Christ is true God of true God and fully man as well - no mention of "angels" here.

I realize that this reference may not have been Richard's intent - however, we have to be careful in how we speak of these awesome things so as not to be led astray.

Fr David Moser

[JessiPollo]

From the above:

The entire tree is the Church, being deification in the Angel of the Lord, the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ. This does indeed go back to Paradise: the life of Adam and Eve is this same Orthodox Faith known in deification. "The Lord knows those who are His" (2 Tim 2:19).

would also like to emphasize that the incarnate Christ is not an angel. The angels are a distinct creation and are by definition non-corporeal, thus it is not possible for an angel to be incarnate and remain an angel - it would be a violation of his very nature. The Incarnate Christ is true God of true God and fully man as well - no mention of "angels" here.

I realize that this reference may not have been Richard's intent - however, we have to be careful in how we speak of these awesome things so as not to be led astray.

The only father I know of to speak of Christ explicitly as angel is St Justin the Philosopher (second century), who uses this title for the Word at various places. What Fr David has said is important, as far as categories of beings go: the angels are a specific part of the created order, of which Christ as eternal (uncreated) Son is not. He is not an angel; not one of these creatures. But inasmuch as 'angel', as a term, not only refers to the categories of beings ('the heavenly host') but also -- as a descriptor -- to anyone acting as a messenger (which is what the term means), it sometimes does find parlance in the Church's reference to Christ. The Son is angel inasmuch as he is, in the incarnation, the chief messenger of the will of the Father. But this has to be said very carefully, to specify that 'angel' here means messenger, not type of being.

As such, it seems problematic to speak of 'the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ', as this seems to speak of a type of being: one who is an angel, then becomes incarnate. With the Son, he is 'angel' in his incarnation - in the becoming-human that is the full message and manifestation of the Father's will.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[refsherne]

Er … hello …
Um … I thought originally I was being balanced in my view of the priesthood and sacraments. I did not seek to be (jovially!) controversial - but am happy to oblige! Ah, this has made my month!

Please do not misunderstand me, but I think there has been a misunderstanding!

I will post my reply concerning the priesthood and sacraments in another post, but for now I will concentrate on the following:

It is not possible to define Church as deification. Deification is an ascetical act, or rather, the fruit of ascetical life, that brings one into communion with Christ himself. It is not a thing, or a group, or a community, or an identity: it is an act of communion with and in Christ. The Church is this Christ's body, which feeds and fosters this process of deifying life through Christ's presence in his creation.
The moment we start calling the Church deification, Christ is fundamentally depersonalised.
INXC, Dcn Matthew

Apart from splitting hairs I agree with you [er … deification is a divine act!! However, to be united worthily with God will indeed involve purification by cooperating with the deifying grace itself. Indeed someone wrote near your post that "we have to be careful in how we speak of these awesome things so as not to be led astray" … but I know what you meant!]. All I meant to say was that the Church - being Christ’s Body of which we are a part (and also a ‘whole’, being in each other?) - is made up of us who by being united with Christ are also deified. The way I put it might have been imprecise, but two can make that mistake …

In addition to Fr Matthew's comments, I would also like to emphasize that the incarnate Christ is not an angel. The angels are a distinct creation and are by definition non-corporeal, thus it is not possible for an angel to be incarnate and remain an angel - it would be a violation of his very nature. The Incarnate Christ is true God of true God and fully man as well - no mention of "angels" here.

I can split hairs, physicists can split the atom, but no one can split Christ from God: there never was a time when the Son of God was not! As my prayer book states (probably quoting a standard text): "From a Virgin didst Thou come, not as an ambassador, nor as an angel, but the very Lord Himself incarnate, and didst save me, the whole man. Wherefore I cry to Thee: Glory to Thy power, O Lord".

From the above:
The only father I know of to speak of Christ explicitly as angel is St Justin the Philosopher (second century), who uses this title for the Word at various places.

I do know of one minor Father who, writing to distinguish between the ministry of angels and Christ, says, "Who was the Angel who said to Moses, ‘I am that I am [LXX The Being], the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob’, if not the Son of God, as the great Basil told us?" (St Gregory Palamas in "A study of Gregory Palamas", John Meyendorff, page 192; the reference to St Basil as being ‘great’ has long troubled scholars - as almost no one has heard of him - as has the hieroglyphic reference for his work: Contra Eunom. II, 18, P.G. XXXIX, 609B. The mention of ‘PG’ has led some to speculate that he was a tea drinker, as opposed to someone called Eunom who probably wasn’t).

Indeed the minor prophet Malachi says that, "Behold, I will send my messenger [angel], and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger [angel] of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts" (Mal 3:1). The gospels of Matthew and Mark directly quote from this verse.

There is also another possible reference to this ‘Angel of the Covenant’ Who said of Himself, "I am The Being" (as quoted above). On Orthodox Icons of Christ appear the cryptic letters ‘W’, ‘O’, ‘N’. Scholars are divided as to their meaning: most hold that the letters refer to the word ‘won’ because Christ ‘won’ the victory over sin and death, however others say that they refer to ‘own’ (reading from top then from left to right) because Christ ‘owns’ us as we "were bought at a price" (1 Cor 7:23).

Nevertheless, there exists a minority of scholars who actually believe that these three letters are from the Greek alphabet, and that the refer to the words "ὁ ὤν" (in capitals O WN), the Greek for "The Being" spoken by the Angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses. If this is true - and it is only a vague possibility - then Christ would be proclaimed to be the Angel of the Lord - that Angel who became incarnate - on almost every icon!

As such, it seems problematic to speak of 'the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ', as this seems to speak of a type of being: one who is an angel, then becomes incarnate.

To conclude, I do not say merely, "the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ", but "the Angel of the Lord, the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ". By using the term "Angel of the Lord" from the Old Testament I merely wanted to emphasise the ancientness of deification in the Church.

"You say potato, I say potato": you read ‘angel’ where I write ‘Angel’!!

Richard

[JessiPollo]

Dear Richard and others,

That was an interesting post. A few thoughts in response:

Please do not misunderstand me, but I think there has been a misunderstanding!

Of course, there is always the possibility of misunderstanding, especially in on-line discussions; and where and when that happens,we can all stand bemused at the event.

But I rather suspect there are also some issues between your comments and my response that are genuine issues of difference, not simple misunderstanding. To flesh this out and explore it, a few comments from your post:

Apart from splitting hairs I agree with you [er … deification is a divine act!! However, to be united worthily with God will indeed involve purification by cooperating with the deifying grace itself. Indeed someone wrote near your post that "we have to be careful in how we speak of these awesome things so as not to be led astray" … but I know what you meant!]. All I meant to say was that the Church - being Christ’s Body of which we are a part (and also a ‘whole’, being in each other?) - is made up of us who by being united with Christ are also deified. The way I put it might have been imprecise, but two can make that mistake …

Actually, I would hesitate - strongly - in calling deification a 'divine act' in any unqualified way. The process of deification is one that intrinsically involves both God and man in symphonia. As such, it is properly an action of this struggle. In my earlier post I casually defined it in this way:

Indeed the minor prophet Malachi says that, "Behold, I will send my messenger [angel], and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger [angel] of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts" (Mal 3:1). The gospels of Matthew and Mark directly quote from this verse.

There is also another possible reference to this ‘Angel of the Covenant’ Who said of Himself, "I am The Being" (as quoted above). [...] these three letters are from the Greek alphabet, and [...] refer to the words "ὁ ὤν" (in capitals O WN), the Greek for "The Being" spoken by the Angel of the Lord who appeared to Moses. If this is true [...] then Christ would be proclaimed to be the Angel of the Lord - that Angel who became incarnate - on almost every icon!

Yes, this harks back to the distinction I made in my earlier post: namely that 'angel' is used in different ways in the Church. As a category of being, it is clearly inapplicable to Christ (as Fr David noted initially); as a title meaning 'messenger', it has a certain applicability to Christ -- as a few (though not many) of the fathers employ it (the most obvious to me is Justin, as I noted, who focused on it rather directly; though you also helpfully provided another example, which I believe is from St Gregory Palamas -- though I couldn't quite make clear sense of the attribution section of that paragraph in your post). So in these comments from your most recent post, I can certainly see that this is something recognised all around (which I trust will allay Fr David's concerns, expressed in his initial response).

That said, I still believe the following to be problematic:

...the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ.

Re-affirmed in your most recent post:

To conclude, I do not say merely, "the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ", but "the Angel of the Lord, the Angel now known as the Incarnate Christ". By using the term "Angel of the Lord" from the Old Testament I merely wanted to emphasise the ancientness of deification in the Church.

While I do think I understand your intention in this, Richard, it still seems to conflate important terms and ideas. The scriptures (e.g. the prophet Malachi) never speak of 'the angel' who then 'becomes incarnate'. Rather, the incarnate Christ is declared to be angel - messenger. This is, admittedly, a nuanced distinction, yet it is extremely critical. The Son is not 'angel' who becomes incarnate; in other words, he is not 'messenger' in this manner before the incarnation, such that the incarnation becomes an act or phase of the Son's/Angel's existence. Rather, when the Son takes flesh and becomes man, this incarnation is the very substance of his 'message' - the full revelation of the Father. The Angel of the Lord does not become incarnate; the eternal Son becomes, in the incarnation, the angel/Angel (the capitalisation is irrelevant) of the Father's redemption: the very messenger of the glory he is himself as the Father's eternal Son.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[refsherne]

Dear Fr Dcn Matthew (who has to read this post as all threads in the "World new and events" are moderated - useful eh?), and all,

The more I think about it the more I am convinced that we are speaking the same language but in different accents!

Actually, I would hesitate - strongly - in calling deification a 'divine act' in any unqualified way. The process of deification is one that intrinsically involves both God and man in symphonia. As such, it is properly an action of this struggle.
...
Deification is part-and-parcel of the authentic ascetical struggle, and so I would rather stand by calling it an 'ascetical act'. All ascetical purification is always the working of divine grace, working specifically in symphony with the active repentance of the human person. Part of the challenge that articulation of deified life has traditionally faced has been the tendency to divorce it from its authentic ascetical context -- either by claiming it a wholly divine act (which is neither ascetical, nor truly deification; it is rather manipulation), or by claiming it is a wholly human act (which again is not ascetical, as ascesis is never distinct from the active working of God's grace).

I think you are using the term deification to refer to the whole process which we now have to undergo due to the Fall, i.e. ascetical purification to worthily attain to the Vision of God (I myself did refer to purification by cooperation with grace). I am perfectly happy to accept that some Fathers have used the term in this broader context.

However, I am using the term deification to refer to the Vision of the Divine Light which shone from Christ when He was transfigured, and this was seen by the disciples:

Going back to the initial context of defining 'Church', it still seems to me quite inaccurate to attempt to identify it with deification, not least because deification is not a thing, but at attribute of act and ascetical transformation. In your most recent post, Richard, you note that your intention in that earlier comment was to emphasise that 'the Church - being Christ’s Body of which we are a part [...] - is made up of us who by being united with Christ are also deified.' This is surely a good point to emphasise. But the patristic language of deification is so regularly misunderstood and misused that special attention needs to be paid with it; hence my response. Deification is, patristically defined, an anthropological doctrine that forms part of the Christian articulation of human nature and human existence. The Church is not to be described in terms of human existence itself, but as the communion in Christ whereby this human existence is realised and restored.

"The Church is not to be described in terms of human existence itself, but as the communion in Christ whereby this human existence is realised and restored" - I agree, and have quoted above from Gregory Palamas regarding the church to this extent, but also showing the link to deification. Again, I am convinced that we must be speaking with strong different accents!

Regarding the title 'angel' with respect of Christ ...

Yes, this harks back to the distinction I made in my earlier post: namely that 'angel' is used in different ways in the Church. As a category of being, it is clearly inapplicable to Christ (as Fr David noted initially); as a title meaning 'messenger', it has a certain applicability to Christ -- as a few (though not many) of the fathers employ it (the most obvious to me is Justin, as I noted, who focused on it rather directly; though you also helpfully provided another example, which I believe is from St Gregory Palamas -- though I couldn't quite make clear sense of the attribution section of that paragraph in your post). So in these comments from your most recent post, I can certainly see that this is something recognised all around (which I trust will allay Fr David's concerns, expressed in his initial response).

That said, I still believe the following to be problematic:

While I do think I understand your intention in this, Richard, it still seems to conflate important terms and ideas. The scriptures (e.g. the prophet Malachi) never speak of 'the angel' who then 'becomes incarnate'. Rather, the incarnate Christ is declared to be angel - messenger. This is, admittedly, a nuanced distinction, yet it is extremely critical. The Son is not 'angel' who becomes incarnate; in other words, he is not 'messenger' in this manner before the incarnation, such that the incarnation becomes an act or phase of the Son's/Angel's existence. Rather, when the Son takes flesh and becomes man, this incarnation is the very substance of his 'message' - the full revelation of the Father. The Angel of the Lord does not become incarnate; the eternal Son becomes, in the incarnation, the angel/Angel (the capitalisation is irrelevant) of the Father's redemption: the very messenger of the glory he is himself as the Father's eternal Son.

I perfectly agree with you!!! To call Christ an Angel (or angel) in general is never done and should be avoided in case people think Christ is a created being; He is not created, but it is He who makes us sons of God as he is the Son of God incarnate. However, I have always clearly identified the context of applying the word angel to Christ: it is in the context of the Old Testament appearance of the "Angel of the Lord", by which is meant the Vision of God. This 'Angel' is merely the appearance of God in a likeness of a human, thereby prefiguring the incarnation.

In the texts for Holy Thursday I have read (quoting from memory) about the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears and hair: "I will wash the feet of Him, those feet whose sound Eve heard in paradise and hid herself for fear".

The appearances of God in the Old Testament (usually, though not always, prefixed with the term "the Angel of the Lord ...") are the manifestation of the pre-incarnate Christ. When St Gregory Palamas refers to Christ as an Angel, it is only in the context of the appearance of God to Moses in the burning bush (in the passage in Exodus it is clearly stated that the Being in the bush was "the Angel of the Lord" Exodus 3:2).

If we can say that the pre-incarnate Christ became incarnate, then why not that the Angel of the Lord - Who appeared to Moses - became incarnate?

Anyway, you are told to "Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition" (Titus 3:10) - and I think I have passed this limit. However, I am really trying to agree with you. To show that this verse of St Paul does not apply to me, I think it is important to distinguish between 'division' and 'distinction', and to divide between 'distinction' and 'division': I am not a divisive man, but merely aim to be a 'man of distinction'!!

Richard
PS When I click reply to include a post, the text does not include the quotation within that post. How do do this?