There is a gulf that separates Protestant understanding of Christianity from the understandings of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. In a Protestant church, you might hear the Church defined as, “the body of baptized believers”; i.e., the collective body of all Christians.

This is not the way the Orthodox Church (OC) and the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) define “Church”. I will try and confine myself to Orthodoxy since Roman Catholicism may be in a state of flux on this point.

To the Orthodox, the OC is The Church – - unqualified – - period. There are many Christians outside the Church who either schismatics or heritics. However, the Church (the OC) is the Body of Christ and cannot, by definition, be divided.

What this means is that at the very essence of being Orthodox is that the fulness of Christianity – - all that could possibly be necessary – - is present in the OC.

Now, that does not mean that other churches do not have their good points or that they do not possess some degree of truth. It certainly does not mean that heterodox Christians can’t be saved. They can. “There are wolves within and sheep without.” However, if they are saved on the last day, it will not be by virtue of their own confessions.

A similar dynamic applies among traditional Roman Catholics except that, of course, for them the locus of “the Church” is the Roman Catholic Church.

What all of this means is that such metaphors and analogies as Peter – John – Paul are best applied within Protestantism where each of these Apostles might represent different Protestant denominational tendencies. This metaphor really doesn’t resonate with the Orthodox since we cannot look at ourselves in the way you posit since it is contrary to the foundations of our faith.

Thank you for your response. I would like to respond if I may.

1. I understand what your trying to convey in using the term “remnant.” It still begs the question, “Does the NT Church still exist today?” I agree wholeheartedly with you that there were divisions in St. Paul’s time, which I believe included those who had minor doctrinal issues and those who were completely “out of communion” with the Church. As a convert from Protestantism to Orthodoxy, I no doubt believe the Orthodox Church to be the true Church. Her teachings regarding those outside of Her, are in my opinion, very reassuring: “We know the Holy Spirit is in the Orthodox Church. Where the Spirit is not we do not know.” Here it is plain to see that although the Orthodox Church regards Herself as the True Church, it does not condemn those outside of Her. Up until Vatican II, Roman Catholicism condemned all of those who were not confirmed members. And before pluralism became accepted in Protestantism, various denominations condemned each other. So, “remnant” might be applicable in the western Church, but not in the East.

3. Each of the three have a different ecclesiology, well I dare say how many ecclesiologies exist in Protestantism.

I understand that you do not want to deny any of these bodies membership in the Body of Christ, we cannot judge. That is for Christ alone. Yet we must speak up for that which we believe God would want us to.

In Christ,

David Sanders

2. It is precisely because of sacred tradition that either Orthodoxy of Roman Catholicism is the true Church. Something to think about is a quote from the great Protestant theologian Philip Schaaf’s History of the Christian Church: “The East had no Dark Ages therefore it had no Reformation.” What does this imply? I am not saying there is nothing good about Protestantism. I am saying however, they cannot keep either Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism “in line” with scripture. They cannot even present a united front, if you will.

By the way, you should give Vladimir Soloviev credit for first positing the Peter, John and Paul idea.

Let me just share a few thoughts in response to your questions:

1) You are right that the “invisible church” is not really a biblical metaphor, but I think it could be argued that the biblical metaphor of the “remnant” (those who have not bowed their knee to Baal) can be applied instead. I’d suggest there is a remnant made up of folks from all the different branches.

2)I can see your point that some of Protestantism’s claims to being the original church are not too strong, but, even if we “dismiss” Protestantism, we run into a serious problem if we want to identify one true Church whose sacred tradition is somehow pure. As far as I can see BOTH the Catholic and Orthodox churches can make equally strong claims to being that original church. I do not really see that one can discount the other’s claim to supremacy on the basis of sacred tradition. Remember too that if we return to the remnant metaphor (and if we remember what’s more that God continually purifies the OT church of the Jews), then we CAN add in the claims of Protestantism to be the original church.

3) Although I think you DO make a strong argument for Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17 as being a confirmation that there should be one single institutional church (say, the Catholic), I don’t see it as too much of a stretch to see his prayer as pointing to a remnant of true believers from across all divides. We must remember that there was much division in the early Church, esp. between Paul’s Gentile Church and the Judaizers.

4) But let me back up and be honest here. Part of the divide between Catholic/Orthodox one one side and Protestants (esp. low Prot.) on the other is that they define “doing Church” in such a different way.

I hope these thoughts are helpful, David. I continually struggle with these things myself and found your questions stimulating. Please do feel free to visit my webpage at http://www.Loumarkos.com to download (all for free) more of my essays. Blessings,

Lou

1. Is there not one Church, that has remained “unscathed” doctinally since the time of the Holy Apostles? If not, does the mean “the gates of hell” HAVE “prevailed” against Her? The idea that the Church is the “invisible body of believers” is a rather recent Protestant teaching, actually gnostic in nature.

2. How can the Protestant Church, which is continually dividing over the meaning of scripture, keep either Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy scripturally “on track”? Besides, the latter two appeal to Holy Tradition, something completely alien to Protestantism.

3. This article presents the idea that no one church has the “fullness of the Faith.” If this is so, can a Christian be complete? Is this not a contradiction of I Tim. 3:15 and Eph. 1:21-23?

Christ calls us to be one in John 17. How this will be done is rightly stated in the beginning of the article:

“Whatever work is done to achieve partial unity within the sub-branches of, say, Protestantism, the essential division between the three main branches will almost surely remain intact until Christ returns.”