HP:

With some exception to your title for this thread . . . .

From HP in another thread:
The community? Those who have spoken Yes in their Heart � that is the community. And that is the community I encounter time and again. That is the Church!

Call it an invisible aspect, if you will.
To me it is the only one that IS visible! The only one that counts.

Imperfect? Not at all! The Spiritual Body of Christ � which is the Church � is perfect. The Church is One, just as God is One. That is the only Church I recognise.

However, our participation in that Church may be imperfect, as our nature is imperfect. As are our insistence on focusing on divisions that are man-created, and therefore only superimposed, not of God, not truly there.

----

HP, I understand what you're saying, but it does seem that you're not giving sufficient emphasis to the sacramental thrust of the Incarnation. What I mean is that while there is surely an invisible, spiritual dimension to the Church, as you have noted, there has also been, from the first, a visible, sacramental manifestation as well. IOW, it's not enough to simply profess faith and trust in Christ to belong to Christ's mystical body; one must be baptized as well. This mandate comes from Jesus, and is consistent with his mission that the reign of God come on earth as in heaven. This entails the gathering of a visible community of believers who find, in their worship and support, a tangible experience of Christ in their midst, especially when they gather for the breaking of the bread. Christ identifies himself now with these believers, as evidenced in his message to Paul on the road to Damascus. His visible presence in this world is first and foremost through the Church, meaning, in this sense, the visible, organized community of believers.

For sure, the "spiritual Church" extends beyond the boundaries of organized, institutional denominations, including all those who have "implicit faith" and thus belong to a kind of "implicit Church." The Church also includes those who have died in Christ and who still work in mysterious ways for the advancement of the reign of God.

Christ's risen body, to which we are connected as members of the Church, isn't merely spiritual -- it's risen! And what is risen is his physical body as well as his spiritual soul.

I'm guessing we're not that far off in our understanding, but this is an issue I deal with often in spiritual direction and teaching, as there are many who want to be Christian but who don't want to affiliate with any Christian community. I tell them to keep looking around to find something that fits/resonates, as a Christian without a Church is like a fish out of water.

Another small point . . .

The Church isn't perfect, but it IS holy! That is to say that it exists in and for God. But the individual, flesh-and-blood people who constitute the Church are not perfect; we are, in fact, sinful, not just in our bodies, but in our spirits as well. Our acts of faith are also imperfect, but they are accepted by Christ. What we are, in Christ, is a sick, cancerous social organism being healed and transformed by his Holy Spirit. If one doesn't want to join a Church body because it is sick and cancerous, then that is understandable, but there is no other kind to join -- not even hypothetically. There is no perfect Church on earth, only in heaven, where the "Church triumphant" waits as we do for the full establishment of the reign of God on earth.

When I read what Phil posted above, especially his comment on the �sacramental thrust of the incarnation,� I was reminded of a conversation I had a few weeks ago with a friend who is a devout Catholic and attends Mass daily. The focus of our conversation, at least initially, was on the dramatic differences in the spiritual paths we have chosen to follow. His is what I often refer to as a primarily 'sacramental spirituality', while my own is principally a personal and individual spirituality. Using Phil's words, the thrust of my friend's spiritual life focuses on the presence of Christ in the sacraments of the church, particularly the Eucharist, and on taking part in the communal life of his parish. On the other hand, the thrust of my own spiritual life is aimed at nurturing a personal sense of oneness with the Christ within me and manifesting His presence in the world around me, especially in my workplace and in the personal relationships that I take part in. Much of that conversation, of course, in terms of what we each reflect in our own spirituality, served to highlight the differences between the personal and the communal/ecclesial dimensions of one's faith experience.

The reason I bring this up, given the subject of this thread, is because I believe strongly that we can only truly become the body of Christ in the world if we go beyond a sacramental spirituality, beyond whatever our participation in the life of church entails and nurture an inner spiritual life which is aimed at what I often refer to as 'incarnational living'. Let me explain what I mean by that.

There is a wonderful Hebrew word �shekhinah�which literally means 'to settle, inhabit, or dwell.' It is traditionally associated with visible symbols which represent a dwelling or settling of God's presence. For example, in the book of Exodus Moses wrote, �And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead the way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light.� Another example of God's 'sheckhinah' was when Moses heard God speaking to him from a burning bush on Mount Horeb. And, of course, the tabernacle which the Israelites constructed in the wilderness and the temple which Solomon had built in Jerusalem represented the ultimate symbols of God's presence. Notice, though, that what all of these symbols reflect about the divine presence is that, while God was most certainly in the midst of His chosen people and was present to them in their lives, His dwelling place was external to them. It was in the tabernacle in the wilderness, the temple in Jerusalem, a cloud that showed the way before them, a pillar of fire, and a burning bush.

What the word external really signifies, however, addresses the separation between God and Israel which was the consequence of sin. This is the ultimate tragedy of sin. It severs the relationship between man and God. In the Old Testament, in fact, this was why God commissioned a holy priesthood through Moses which would serve as the mediators of His presence in the lives of His chosen people. In other words, the relationship between God and the children of Israel was an indirect, rather than a personal and direct, relationship, one in which they related to God primarily in and through the temple priesthood and the feasts, sacrifices, and purification rites which took place in the temple.

Whenever we think of the 'church' as the body of Christ in the world I think that it is critical to appreciate this perspective on the Old Testament relationship with God since, when He sacrificed His life on the cross, Christ effectively abolished the need for an intermediary priesthood, including the temple feasts, sacrifices, and purification rites. In its place, however, He offered all believers a new and everlasting covenant with the Father, a personal and direct relationship with God which is rooted in a very simple, universal, and life-transforming truth: God's dwelling place is in you and in me. You and I, that is, are living temples of Divine Spirit. In short, then, our calling in Christ is to awaken to His presence within us, to enter into a meaningful communion with Him and in that communion to surrender ourselves to the guiding and formative work of the Spirit. This attitude of self-surrender is how the Spirit works within us to free us from the power of sin and, in the process, to transform and cleanse us in mind, heart, and soul. Considering the subject of this thread, it is also the bottom line since what we are talking about is how, personally and individually and as a church, we become His sheckhinah and dwelling place or the body of Christ in the world around us. This is what I mean by 'incarnational living.' As Peter himself wrote, we are �like living stones being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.�

This brings me back to the conversation I had with my friend. You see, the problem I found with what he had to say was that it seemed to me that church, priests, and sacraments all function together in his experience as an intermediary, or mediating presence, between him and God, while his response, which is unquestionably a deeply felt and deeply personal response, is reflected in his dedication to his parish. What I am trying to say here is that his relationship with God, like the children of Israel in the Old Testament, seems to be more of an indirect, than a personal and direct relationship. I say this because, while he was quick to stress how often he attends Mass, how often he attends Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, and how committed he is to his parish, he had nothing at all to say about spending time alone in his own home with God, about God's presence in him or even about his own personal love for God. He also had nothing to say about how his relationship with God has changed his life. Consequently, I don't think that it would be much of a stretch for me to see his relationship with God reflected more in an Old Testament experience than in a New Testament experience. More to the point, although I know that he believes that God's dwelling place is in him, he acts as if His dwelling place is in the tabernacle in his church and in the sacraments that he receives.

The point I would like to make here is that my friend would not be an anomaly in any church or denomination, let alone the Catholic church and he is a far cry from being an exception to the rule. With that in mind, just as Phil was quite right to suggest that we all need to give sufficient emphasis to the sacramental thrust of the incarnation, I would like to make the point that the Catholic church itself needs to give sufficient emphasis to the personal and individual spiritual life of its members. But this is a huge shortcoming on the part of the church, at least the church as I have experienced it over the years. In every parish I have ever belonged to it is evident in the lack of time, energy, and resources which the church expends on the spiritual growth and development of its members. It is as if the Church's response to Christ's words, �Feed my sheep,� is wrapped up almost entirely in administering the sacraments of the church. Yet, the presence of Christ in the eucharist is no more real than the presence of Christ in the human heart. In fact, when I think of Jesus' words, �My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me,� or Paul's words, �It is no longer I, but Christ who lives in me,� or Peter's words that we are �like living stones being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood,� there is not a question in my mind that if you and I are ever to give any real meaning to those words, our spiritual life will need to go way beyond the reach of a sacramental spirituality.

I know that I may be rambling on here and there is actually a lot more that I would like to say on this subject, but I have probably said enough.

God bless,

Roger

That's a thoughtful reflection, Roger. I'll have to read it again and give it more thought before replying more in-depth, but I did want to reply to one point now:

. . . It is as if the Church's response to Christ's words, �Feed my sheep,� is wrapped up almost entirely in administering the sacraments of the church. Yet, the presence of Christ in the eucharist is no more real than the presence of Christ in the human heart.

Church parishes can be understaffed and overwhelmed by sacramental ministry, but that's not a theological issue; it's a practical one indicating the importance of making provision for education, spiritual formation, pastoral ministry, etc.

Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is at odds with your statement above. In one sense, Christ is Christ, but his gift of Self in the Eucharist is of a different order than his spiritual presence to us.

See this section of the new Catechism., especially the point below.

quote:

1374 The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend."[199] In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained."[200] "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present."

It also kind of seems you might be judging your friend's spirituality. Worshiping the Eucharistic Christ (reserved in the tabernacle) doesn't necessarily imply an Old Testament mentality. In my experience, there is a special presence there and it's not strictly external. It's relational, and made more vivid and intense through such adoration.

More later . . .

Hi Phil,

I have just gotten home from work and read your post, but am so tired I think I will be hitting the hay. My wife had her colon removed a week ago today, so, as you can imagine, caring for her will be keeping me pretty busy for awhile. While I am on the topic, she has been so sickly for the last several weeks that I haven't had a lot of puter time. So that is why I haven't been too active of late.

When I read your quote from my post I realized immediately that I shouldn't have included the word 'administering.' So, if you take that word out of that sentence, what I was attempting to say was that it seems to me that the church's response to Jesus' words to Peter, "Feed my sheep," is almost entirely wrapped up in the sacraments of the church. For example, my own experience of the transforming and liberating power of Christ was the work of the Christ within me and not the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In fact, I have serious doubts that the transformation that I have experienced could ever have come about solely at the level of what I have referred to as a sacramental spirituality. It was the spiritual path that I followed, the very intimate relationship which I have consciously and deliberately nurtured with the Christ within me, that lead to a profound spiritual renewal which I cherish more than I can say.

The point I want to make, though, is that I went the sacramental route, if I can be permitted to put it that way. In those prodigal years when I wanted nothing more than to be someone else, rather than me, I went to Mass faithfully, confession regularly, I was on the parish council in the parish I belonged to, I was the organist at every Mass on Sunday mornings, and I prayed and prayed and prayed to the Lord to give me the strength to change. I loathed the double life that I was living and was filled with shame and guilt over the things that I would do, things that I would never ever have wanted anyone else to know that I did. I thought that I was doing everything that the church expected of me in order to change. But the change just never happened.

It was only some years later when I finally realized that I didn't truly 'know' God in the most personal and direct sense of the word. I had never personally experienced His love. Nor had I awakened to the presence of the Lord who lives within me. I can say that because when I did, when I finally experienced God's pure and unconditional love for me, when I was finally touched by the presence of His Son deep in my heart, a whole new world opened up to me. It was like the floodgates suddenly opened wide and I had a whole new footing in life. But you know something, a time came in my experience when it wasn't just God's love that was drawing me to Him. It was the holiness of His divine presence in me. I cannot describe what holiness is. I only know that all that is sacred in this universe dwells within me and He has changed me in ways that I never would have dreamed possible. And I love Him! I worship Him. And I adore Him. I live for Him and strive every day of my life to manifest His presence in the world around me.

This is my experience and, in retrospect, when I look back on the years I have spent in the parishes I have belonged to, what troubles me is that I had never heard as much as a hint in all of those years that such a way of life could be possible for me or that I could ever experience such a huge change in myself and in the way of life that I live. This is what I call a personal spirituality and it is not at all the same as the sacramental spirituality that is fostered by the church. "Feed my sheep." That was Christ's instruction to Peter. Is Catholicism an adequate response to this sacred charge? I would like to hear your response to that question?

Time to hit the hay! God bless.

Roger

So sorry to hear of your wife's continuing health struggles, Roger. Prayers for both of you during this time of healing.

---

The thread topic pertains to the Church as incarnational/sacramental vs. gnostic moreso than what the experiences of individuals has been. What's being affirmed in my opening two posts is that the Apostolic Christian tradition has always insisted that the mystical body of Christ is not merely a matter of personal spiritual experience, but is also a visible, corporate manifestation as well. By sacramental, here, what is meant is that the Church (warts and all) is a visible sign of God's presence in the world.

----

It sounds like your early spiritual development was very external-focused, and that's a common story, especially for baby boomer Catholics. I think it's fair to blame inadequate catechesis and spiritual formation for this deficiency.

In my booklet, Growing in Christ, I reflect on four modes by which Christ is present to us:
- personal/historical (enables relationship); ecclesial; sacramental; cosmic.
There are many, many Christians who know him in only one or two of these modes. The fullness of the knowledge of Christ comes when we are open to encountering him in all of his modes of presence to us.

See http://shalomplace.com/view/growing.html and note that you can read the "lite" version online without purchasing it.

Enjoy . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb]In my booklet, Growing in Christ, I reflect on four modes by which Christ is present to us:
- personal/historical (enables relationship); ecclesial; sacramental; cosmic.
There are many, many Christians who know him in only one or two of these modes. The fullness of the knowledge of Christ comes when we are open to encountering him in all of his modes of presence to us.[/qb]

That�s an interesting point, Phil.
I very much look forward to exloring more of your writings.

Hi Phil,

I guess I went off on a bit of a tangent. Sorry about that.

God bless.

Roger

Phil, Do you think that the the manifestation of the physical church has to look or act in a specific way to be regarded as the visible body of Christ.

If a group of Christians are meeting together on a regular basis in order to build one another up and glorify God, but do not do so in the traditional ways, are they still the visible church that you are describing.

Also, do you think protestants loose out on the full sacramental effect of the Eucharist?

Roger, not a problem. The points you brought up about an unbalanced sacramental emphasis are very important, and relate to the questions Jacques is asking. Besides, when did a discussion board thread ever really stick to the topic?

- - - -

Jacques, bodies of believers can and often do behave in counter-symbolic ways. As I noted in my second post above, What we are, in Christ, is a sick, cancerous social organism being healed and transformed by his Holy Spirit. Sometimes the sickness comes through more than the healing Light.

Re. Protestantism and the Eucharist: I think, on the whole, Protestantism made a huge mistake in moving away from the Eucharistic focus that was the norm prior to the Reformation. That was certainly not Luther's intent, but as the reformers multiplied in number with an ever-increasing variety of justifications for splitting, the movement was increasingly away from a sacramental orientation. What took its place was Scripture, which is almost treated as a kind of "real presence" in many groups.

Carl Jung admired the emphasis on personal piety and
democracy among Protestants, but had more hope for the Catholic because the mass engaged the subconscious and could therefore provide the archetypal mataphor required to reach a genuine and authentic self.

If I ever find my genuine and authentic self, the one that can have a true relationship as a freind of
God rather than a child of God, I'll be sure and let you all know. Still working on it...

PBPGINFWMY (Please be patient, God is not finished
with me yet.)

peace on earth, goodwill toward men

quote:

Jacques, bodies of believers can and often do behave in counter-symbolic ways. As I noted in my second post above, What we are, in Christ, is a sick, cancerous social organism being healed and transformed by his Holy Spirit. Sometimes the sickness comes through more than the healing Light.

Actually Phil, I meant groups that are displaying more of the light and health than the sickness, but do not operate in the full institutional capacity as say the Catholic Church. Are they less than the Catholic church just because they are less traditional or institutional etc.

quote:

Carl Jung admired the emphasis on personal piety and
democracy among Protestants, but had more hope for the Catholic because the mass engaged the subconscious and could therefore provide the archetypal mataphor required to reach a genuine and authentic self.

What a great point and it really makes sense. I find myself very drawn to the liturgy of the Mass and so in sync with it. There is a spiritual depth to it that I find is missing in other churches. Jung's insight has hit the nail on the head. Thanks for the thought.

God bless,

Roger

quote:

Originally posted by Jacques:
[qb] Actually Phil, I meant groups that are displaying more of the light and health than the sickness, but do not operate in the full institutional capacity as say the Catholic Church. Are they less than the Catholic church just because they are less traditional or institutional etc. [/qb]

"Less" in what sense? Whatever your response, I am surely not the judge in these matters.

I do believe, however, that any Christian tradition that is open to the four modes of Christ's presence mentioned above will evidence a fuller Christian witness than those that do not. That's just a general principle, however, which is subject to all kinds of exceptions with regard to specific congregations.

Phil, Roger & Jacques, I don't mean to make this all simplistic but I sense that everyone is beating around the bush and won't say the Catholic Church is saying it is better than all others. When in fact all it states is to meet God on the fullest terms we believe that the Sacrament of Eucharist is the Ultimate way of being in Union w/ Jesus Christ not that we are better than anyone else. Imay be wrong here as i've said before I have aphasia so I can be mis interpreting. For years many felt that is how we Cathoics felt when in all reality we have respected every religion and it's beliefs but just felt our sacramentalty lead us through Jesus Christ & the Holy Spirit to God the Father and Unity. And made us Whole. Just as Phil states we are sinners and are made whole by the grace of God. Hope I haven't offened anyone but that's my two cents and have a Blessed Christmas and New Year from a New York Celtic Soul

No offenses taken, I'm sure, Cathy. Thanks for your sharing.

Roman Catholicism isn't the only Christian tradition that recognizes Christ present in the Eucharist and other sacramental manifestations. The Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and a few other denominations do as well. And it's not to say that Christ is not present and working in other Christian traditions that do not reverence the Eucharist; obviously, he is. Jacques' and Roger's points are well-taken.

To get straight to the point, instead of asking questions for a reason and not stating the reason. I am part of a small group that meet every Thursday. We meet in a home and are completely informal. We have people in the group who are natural leaders and so they guide the group, but not "officially". Every week whoever wants to share something prepares for the evening and then leads the evening. Usually discussion around something and then fellowship with one another around food and drink. I also attend a Vineyard Church on Sundays and once in a while an Anglican Church. I feel though that my informal group is more church the way Christ speaks of it than the other institutions. I may feel different in the future, but this is the way I feel at the moment

I've been a member of independent, Protestant based churches since my parents left the strict enclosures of the "Brethern" when I was a boy. We started off in a house church, similar to what you describe, Jacques, and I must say, at times it felt close to how it must have been in the early church described in Acts.

I've also felt from an early age some form of beauty and grace administered in the bread and wine and a real sense of Christ's Presence in communion services. This might not amount to a sacramental approach to communion and its not likely that Christ's Real Presence was in the elements in that setting, but it felt and still feels like something oh so close and it's a great blessing to take communion each Sunday.

I sense That we are all talking about community and the prescence of Christ in the Body of Christ of us. Which is what Church is no matter how large or small. I may be making this simplistic again but I woul never deny the presence of Christ or God to anyone as it is to personal and to gracefilled. Phil, the Anglican Church is now having it's problems w/ challenging the divinity of Christ and Scripture. That is why this Schism is taking place aside from the homosexual issue. The Bishops did not vote for the legimitacy of Scripture and Dogma. And Divinity of Christ. It's becoming a real issue in the Church. I was quite astounded when I read about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Cathy422:
[qb]I may be making this simplistic again but I woul never deny the presence of Christ or God to anyone as it is to personal and to gracefilled. Phil, the Anglican Church is now having it's problems w/ challenging the divinity of Christ and Scripture.[/qb]

Really? That is surprising.

I did not think the divinity of Christ was an issue of discussion amongst Christians. In fact, it strikes me as a core article of faith of what the great apologist CS Lewis so appropriately called "mere Christianity".

The same goes for Scripture. The only problem I have is with the blasphemy of literalism.

I wasn't aware of that issue re. the divinity of Christ either, Cathy. Are you sure it's a congregational issue? It might be that some theologians are raising questions concerning what we might mean by that, but that's going on in Catholicism as well.

- - -

Jacques and Stephen, it sounds like you've found a Church community that's meaningful to you, and that's wonderful. That's consistent with the meaning of Church as "sacramental" -- that the body of believers make visible the underlying reality. That's the main point I've been trying to make, which is different from a discussion about Sacraments. The latter flow from this understanding of Church-as-sacrament.

Maybe this article says it better.

quote:

To say the Church is a sacrament is to say that it presents externally to the world the Jesus who is the head of the Church, the love of God who is active in the world. As a member of the Church, you are also a sacrament of the Lord. He is present in the world through you. You are his light which shines on others. You are the salt which gives flavor to the world. You are his hands that do good deeds, his eyes that forgive, his comforting words. He is present in the world through an external sign - you, his disciple.

Your task, and the task of the Church, is to be a sign that people understand and recognize. Through your deeds people will know you. Through your deeds people will recognize the Spirit who is in you. Through you Jesus reveals himself to the world.

Your challenge: Be a sacrament of Jesus Christ! Be a good sign!

This, of course, applies not just to Catholics, but to all Christians.

Phil and all, I was watching Fox news the other Night and Fred Barnes was discussing the heavy issues that are occurring w/ the Anglican Church in VA, aside from the Homosexual issues and why the church is actually splitting as he is a member. He staed that the congregation was very upset that the pastors and Bishop were no longer following Doctrine and Dogma and that they no longer believed in the Divinity of Christ. That Even when all the Anlgican Bishops met and voted there was not a general consecensus on this primary issue and this is what is creating the major problems in the Church as well as the blatent practicing of homosexuality by the Bishop. It has created real turmoil for the people. and they are torn and now they are leaving...

Phil your words are so fluid and suucint oh to think so clearly. I love your explanation of sacramentalty as people and allowing Christ to live through us and shine through. It sounds so easy yet why is is so hard for us all. We just don't want to let go of those reins do we. Have a Blessed Christmas everyone, Roger I hope your wife is home and starting to heal ever so slowly and that God gives you the graces of the patient caregiver. . Take care alll Cath

Cathy, could you be referring to this?
- http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=285

quote:

The election of Katharine Jefferts Schori as the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is an occasion of great sadness for all who care about the unity of Christians. . . Schori is an unequivocal supporter of Gene Robinson and of the blessing of same-sex unions. She is reported to be a friend and strong supporter of the retired Bishop John Spong, perhaps the most leftist of ECUSA bishops, who has long agitated against core doctrines of historic Christianity such as the inspiration of Scripture and the divinity of Christ.

I see your point, but I don't think it means that the Anglican/Episcopalian Church has abandoned it core doctrines. Of course, it does raise questions about why they chose this woman and not someone else who is more orthodox.