John Ahern writes,

A Bulgarian Orthodox friend of mine was good enough to read my post, and then even went so far as to translate this large portion of the Orthodox catechism on the issue of the true Church so I could read it. I think that since we have a very wide variety of views on this blog, but not an Orthodox one, I’m going to post that translation he gave me. This is a very central subject as to why the Orthodox Church exists separately from the Roman Catholic.

IN casual conversations we call church the temple, the building, where the believers gather to pray and participate in the holy liturgy. The temple is also named God’s House. However, as well as House of God the term “Church” also means the community of believers, which is one, and the head of the society is Christ alone. More clearly, Church is the society of people, bonded with one orthodox faith, under one God’s law, submitting to one government system, and participating in the same sacraments. This Church forms one body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12–20, 27-28). Head of the Church is Jesus Christ, soul of the Church is the life-giving Holy Spirit, and the members of the Church are we, the believing Orthodox Christians. The Church, as established by the Lord Jesus Christ, began its, so to say, official life on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down upon the Apostles. That day seems to be her birthday. The Holy Spirit, who descended upon her, has not left her since. He is, even now, dwelling in the Church and guiding her. In the Church and through the Church the believers receive God’s grace and the gifts of the Spirit.

But how should we understand the wording: believe in the Church? We believe in something that is unseen. The Church is seen. Can we therefore believe in the Church? And yet, as we shall soon see, it is right to say: I believe in the Church, because in her there is an unseen part as well as the visible one. Part of the unseen Church is God’s grace which flourishes in the Church and guides her. Towards the unseen Church we also need to add the Heavenly Church a part of which are all gone before us true believers and repented Orthodox Christians and Saints. When we say: I believe in the Church, we seemingly state: I firmly believe that in the Church of Christ, which is found on Earth and to which belong all Orthodox Christians, dwells and works the grace of God, and that Christ’s Church is as well in the Heavens, where she unites all passed away in true Orthodox Faith believers, righteous people, and all honestly repented sinners.

We also say : “I believe in the Church” because around the true Church of Christ there are other communities, gatherings, and sects, which look like the Church, but are not the Church. Who will convince us which is the true Church if not our father’s faith? Let us clarify this with some examples. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, is hidden as an ordinary man amongst many men. Who is to reveal Him as the Son of God, the perfect Man and perfect God, if not our faith? The Holy Bible, which contains words of eternal life, is hidden as an ordinary book between many other books in the world. What will help us to distinguish it from all the other books and to see it as the Book of books, if not our faith? In such manner is also the Holy Orthodox Church hidden amongst many religious communities. What is to show in her the true, god-established, saving-church, if not our faith? That is why we say: “I believe in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”

The Church, as God’s establishment, is found on Earth, in order to prepare the believers for Heaven. It will exist forever. That is said by Christ: “On this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Mat. 16:18). There is not such power that can win against the Church of Christ and strip it of existence. This was proved many times in history. In the first centuries of Christianity – the epoch of most severe tribulation, when the Roman emperors thought that they will wipe off even the very name Christian from the face of the Earth, the Church grew most and was greatly nurtured. She is undefeatable, because her strength is in her Founder and Head, Alone the Lord Jesus Christ.

The faith in the Holy Church forces us to listen to her, to follow her teachings and to obey her orders and canons. The members of one body can not obey other laws but the ones ruling the entire body. Otherwise, even though it might appear that they are still functioning in the body, they will not be able to receive life from it and will eventually die, and be removed from the body. So and we, the members of Christ’s Church, need to obey the laws and keep the canons of the Church if we do not want to become death in the body.

We believe in the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

Why is she called “the one”? She is one, because Christ is one. The Church is called the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). As under one head there can not be more than one body, Christ can not be the Head of two or more Churches with different professions of faith. He found one Church, He wanted to bring everyone under the same roof, and He prayed that all who believed in Him be one (John 17:21). The people weary of the one Church alone break the connection with the saving body and become death members. Ever since the establishment of the Church there were heretics and sectarians. But by the power of Christ’s promise the unity of the true Church has been preserved until today.

The church is one but not only by its origin. She is one by her internal and external design. She has one Head, Christ, and one life-giving Spirit. The members are divided into two groups, pastors and sheep. All pastors teach one and the same orthodox teaching, the Creed: they perform the same sacraments and are guided by the same divine laws. All sheep receive that teaching and Creed, take part in the sacraments and follow their pastors.

The unity of the Church urges us “to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:1-3). Even though the Church seems to be spread through the whole Earth she seems to have one heart, one soul, one mouth. The Church is one, even though with her growth the different members seemingly grew more distinct from each other. Like this appeared the so called local Orthodox Churches – Greek, Bulgarian, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, etc. This specification is merely geographic and national; it is dependent on the location ant the administration of the region, the distinction is not in the belief system. It does not prevent the Church from being one in her faith, laws, sacraments, and canons.

Saint Kiprian says: “The son has many beams, but its light is one. The tree has many branches, but its stump is one…Separate the sun-beam from its beginning – the unity will not allow the presence of departed light. Remove the branch from the tree – the broken part will loose its ability to grow… In much the same manner the Church, lit by God’s light, spreads her beams across the globe. The unity of the light, however, is unquestionable. She spreads her heavy with fruit branches over the face of the whole Earth… And yet the Head is one.”

From the one Church have departed the Catholicism and the Protestantism. They have betrayed the faith
of the ancient and catholic Orthodox Church, because they have embraced different and new teachings and beliefs. The Catholicism split from the Orthodox Church during the eleventh century, and the Protestantism appeared even later – in the sixteenth century. In time to come, the Protestantism split into many pieces. Today some people account their number to be close to one thousand.

If we compare all different professions of faith with the old Church, which existed in unity from her foundation to her split, we will see that only our Orthodox Church completely meets with her, and this is thanks to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Who guided her through the ages and saved her from heresies which found their way into other professions of faith.

The Orthodox Christians should remember that they are members of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church and that away from her they can not live righteous-spiritual life and will perish. Out of the Orthodox Church there is no salvation. Only in the Orthodox Church is rightly preserved the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was passed to us through the apostles in the New Testament, kept in the Canonical books, and revealed through the prayers and creations of the holy Fathers and teachers of the Church.

Philip Hilton writes,

This poem is courtesy of my good friend Spencer. It was too good to pass over. :P

My love is like to ice, and I to fire:
How comes it then that this her cold so great
Is not dissolved through my so hot desire,
But harder grows the more I her entreat?
Or how it comes that my exceeding heat
Is not allayed by her heart-frozen cold,
But that I burn much more in boiling sweat,
And feel my flames augmented manifold?
What more miraculous thing may be told,
That fire which all things melts, should harden ice,
And ice, which is congealed with senseless cold,
Should kindle fire by wonderful device?
Such is the power of love in gentle mind,
That it can alter all the course of kind.

John Ahern writes in answer to a question posed by a Roman Catholic friend, which he quotes here:

I think it would be fair to say you believe that (and please correct me if I’m wrong or misrepresenting): [Addressing Protestants]

- The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church — essentially, what the Church is supposed to be

The Catholic Church, today, at the time of Luther, and probably for long before that, is/was not the True Church

– Your church (i.e. denomination) is the True Church

My question, then: When did the Apostolic Church become apostate, and when did it recover its truth again?

If I were to give a quick answer, I’d have to admit to none of the above claims concerning Protestantism. But that won’t help you in your question, so I’ll answer it head on and come back over these three points while I’m doing that.

This term “true Church” has many different meanings and senses for different people, and I’ll answer what I think Classical Protestantism has to say about these different senses. (I won’t touch on Anabaptism, Baptism, the Great Awakenings, Puritanism, Dispensationalism, or Evangelicalism because those were Post-reformation ideas or events and don’t have much to do with Classical Protestantism.)

I think that the statement, “The Church at the time of the Apostles can be considered the True Church — essentially, what the Church is supposed to be” is somewhat misleading because it implies that the True Church began at the time of the Apostles. This is entirely contrary to what the Reformers were saying. The true Church didn’t begin in 1521 at the Diet of Worms, nor at Pentecost in c. 30 AD. It didn’t begin at Matthew 16:18 and the Confession of St. Peter. We go way back, all the way to Genesis 3:15.

It’s God’s covenant, made right after the Fall: that the seed of the Women will crush the Head of the Serpent. Our heel was, is, and will be bruised by the evil one. We have crushed, are crushing, and will crush his head and defeat him. This was the beginning of the true Church, and this promise made by God in Genesis 3:15 was the inception of the Covenant of Grace.

The members in Covenant of Grace make up this true Church, visible and invisible. The invisible is the Church Triumphant, the celestial “cloud of witnesses”. Visible is the terrestrial Church, constantly being sanctified in its morality, theology, and aesthetics (or, if you prefer, its Goodness, Truth, and Beauty). The Invisible and the Visible aren’t two different Churches; Christ is the Head of only one Church. One could put it that the Invisible Church is what the Visible Church looks like at the finish.[1]

I gather that there’s another element involved when you say “true Church”, and this is why. One could define a true Church as an institution that has the one true, correct, and right theology (a “We’re right and everybody else is wrong” mindset). You mentioned that Protestants believe that the Church at the time of the apostles was what it was supposed to be. Actually, the Church has never been what it’s supposed to be: the spotless Bride of Christ. I have every hope (my faith is in vain otherwise) that it will become that, though.

In an important sense, the notion of a true Church comes from notions about infallibility of theology and inerrancy of dogma. Classical Protestantism, at its root and core, denies any possibility of infallibility and inerrancy in a Church, and this is what we mean when we use the phrase sola Scriptura.

Scripture alone is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Doctrine, regardless of whether it is correct, is fallible. The Church, while it has genuine authority over the believer, can be wrong. Since we have the blessing of the Spirit, it isn’t just a safe bet to place ourselves under the theological jurisdiction of the Church, it’s a duty, necessity, obligation, pleasure. It’s the same submission that’s in marriage (the husband leading and the wife following) or in mother to child submission (the child following, the mother leading).

Ideally the Church has the correct theology, but it is still fallible.

So, true Church? That’d be us, the Bride of Christ. From the evidence at hand (that is, granted, limited), I think that congregation of saints includes all these contributing editors, and Pope Benedict XVI, and Chuck Colson, and Peter Kreeft, and the Patriarch of Moscow. What are the perimeters of this true Church? The congregation of saints, past, present, and future, who have belonged to Israel, belonging to God’s promise or covenant to save them and cause them to defeat the Devil. I refer to Israel in the same way the apostles did: I mean, the Church.

Hannah Roorda writes:

Tomorrow I leave for the rest of July and this blog will suffer (enjoy?) a lack of femininity. I leave you with a quote from a favorite theologian:

“All truth is from God; and consequently, if wicked men have said anything that is true and just, we ought not to reject it; for it has come from God. Besides, all things are of God; and, therefore, why should it not be lawful to dedicate to his glory everything that can properly be employed for such a purpose?” –John Calvin

Mark DenHoed writes,

Well, I have finally taken the full step into the digital media world by getting an MP3. Yay me!

I’m really enjoying it. I have all of my music and quite a few Peter Kreeft lectures on it.

So, I was walking through the house listening to the aria of the Goldberg Variations when it struck me; I had spent 90 bucks on an MP3 player (Oh, and it’s a 4 gig Zen V Plus, if you’re interested). I began to wonder if I was really enjoying it. Was it worth 90 dollars? I then thought back to the earlier days of my childhood, when my parents bought me everything. What does one enjoy more, something that’s been gifted or something that one’s bought? So, I thought about it. And I came to the conclusion that I enjoy (or ) something more if I have paid for it. My payment serves as an amplifier of sorts for my emotions.

What is worth more? A good, or its worth in money? Well a good gives gratification, however, it only gives one gratification. Money is slightly different, it itself gives no gratification (like the Goldburg variations), although it does make one ‘feel’ secure (not that feeling makes fact). However, it has the potential to be traded for things that do gratify (ie. an MP3 player to play the Goldburg variations).

Let us suppose that I have a couple million dollars. Then suppose that I didn’t do anything with any of it. Did I ever really have it? If I never used it, I might as well have not had it. One is reminded of the alegory that Kreeft uses about not committing to Christ. Saying ,”Maybe I’ll commit tomorow” until you die really means, “No.” In the same way, having but never spending the money, is the same as not having it at all. I am not, of course, taking into account the ‘influence’ that money has on other people conceptions of you, as that is often superficial.

Now, I’m not saying that you need to run off in a mad fury and spend every dollar you have. That would be imprudent. And stupid. So, what lurks at the other end of the thriftiness spectrum? Well, you could save every dollar you have. You would be ‘using’ the money, in that it is being increased by interest. However, I’m also not saying that you should save every dollar you have (in fact, we are commanded not to). Rather, we should seek to save in moderation.

So, it looks rather open and shut, does it not? Spend some, save some. However, we must look with more detail at when is spent.

Suppose that you spend all of your money on yourself (ie. You don’t tithe. You buy a couple thousand MP3 players etc). Will that last? Will it make a difference? Would you might as well have not had any money at all? All of the MP3s will fade away. All of the Helvetian beer will be consumed. Thus, it is evident that the only way to make your money really useful is to give to the Church and charity. For, the contribution you made to send a missionary into an unreached part of the world will not fade.

And I’ve gone way off topic from the start of this post. I don’t feel like editing it, though.