Inclusive thought:

It is impossible for us to begin by giving an official definition of the Church, because no definition can claim doctrinal authority, and because no definition is unified in the Fathers of the Church and in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. In the doctrinal summaries that were sometimes written in the Eastern Orthodox Church, especially in the seventeenth century, and which were incorrectly called “books on constitutional theology,” we do not find any specification of the Church, except for citing the phrase “constitution of faith” that relates to the church and adding some interpretations to the phrase “constitutional faith” that relates to the church and adding some Interpretations to it. However, the lack of official definitions does not indicate confusion in ideas or ambiguity in opinions. The Church Fathers did not care much about the Church's doctrine, because its glorious truth was apparent to their spiritual vision. One does not define what is clear in oneself, which explains the absence of a special chapter on the Church in all the first presentations of the Christian doctrine, from Origen and St. Gregory of Nyssa to even St. John of Damascus. A number of contemporary Orthodox and Catholic scholars believe that the Church itself did not determine its nature and essence. Robert Grosch says: “The Church itself has not yet determined its nature.” (1). Some theologians see more than that and claim that there can be any definition of it(2). The theology of the Church is still in becoming (im Werden) and formation (3).

Today, it seems that one must go beyond the contemporary theological dispute, in order to once again reach the broad historical perspective, and in order to recover the true “comprehensive thought” that contains the historical experience of the Church in its argument through the ages. He must return from the classroom to the praying church and replace, at a minimum, the scholastic language of theology with the figurative and metaphorical language of the Bible. Perhaps he is better able to describe its nature and depict it than to actually define it. He can only do this from within the church. Perhaps this description is convincing for members of the church only. The secret can only be understood by faith.

The new truth:

The Greek word “ekklesia” (church), which the early Christians took to denote the new truth of which they realized that they were partakers, presupposes a very precise understanding of what the church was. This word, which Christians adopted under the influence of their use of the Septuagint, first confirms the organic continuity between the two Testaments, because Christian existence was understood through the sacred perspective of the Messianic preparation and its fulfillment (Hebrews 1:1-2). This perspective includes a specific theology of history. The Church is the true Israel, the newly chosen people, “the chosen seed, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, and the people whom God has acquired” (1 Peter 2:9). Rather, it is the faithful and chosen remnant of the ancient people who did not respond to their Lord (Luke 12:32. “The little flock,” meaning the “remnant” flock that was restored, saved, and sanctified). All the peoples of the earth, whether Greeks or barbarians, were cut off by God and grafted onto His new people (this is the main topic in St. Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians. See also the second chapter of his letter to the Ephesians).

The word “ekklesia” (church), which is a translation of the Hebrew word “Qahal,” carries a special emphasis in the Old Testament on the basic unity of the chosen people, as they are sacred as a whole. This unity was rooted in the mystery of divine choice more than in the reality of “natural” features. This emphasis was only proven through the influence of the Hellenistic use of this word, which usually indicates the meeting of the masters of the people in the city and the general meeting of all legal citizens. When this word was applied to the new Christian existence, it retained its ancient origin. The church was both the people and the city, but the emphasis was placed on the organic unity of Christians.

From the beginning, Christianity truly united people to make them one community. In order for a person to be a Christian, he must belong to a group. No one can be a Christian alone and as an isolated individual, but “but with the brothers” and in “communion with them”: “Unus christianus - nullus christianus” (one Christian - no Christian). Personal conviction alone or even a way of life alone does not make a person a Christian, because Christian existence requires integration into the community, that is, into the apostolic community, and into participation with the Twelve and their message. The Christian “community” was gathered and established by Jesus Christ himself “during his life in the flesh,” and he gave it at least a temporary form and structure when he called the twelve, whom he called “apostles” or “ambassadors” (see Luke 6:13: “to whom he called apostles.”) ). “Sending” the twelve is not only a mission, but rather a mandate, because he gave them “power” (Mark 3:15, Matthew 10:1, Luke 9:1). When he appointed the twelve “witnesses” to the Lord (Luke 24:48, Acts 1:8), they alone deserved to safeguard the continuation of the Christian message and the life of fellowship. Therefore, participation in the lives of the apostles was the first feature of the “Church of God” in Jerusalem (Acts 2:42, Koinonia).

Christianity is “common life.” Therefore, Christians should consider themselves “brothers” (this word was one of their first names) and members of a single community bound by warm affection. Charity was the first sign and proof of this organic company. We deserve to say: Christianity is communion, cooperation, brotherhood, unity, and “a friendly community” (coetus fidelium). A description like this helps us in the beginning, but it requires clarification, because it lacks something important. One must ask: What is this unity and this company based on? Where are they rooted? What is that force that brings together and unites people? Is this strength only a social instinct, or a force for social cohesion? Is it an emotional drive or some other force of natural attraction? Is this unity based on a consensus of opinions, or on similarity in theories and convictions? In sum, is the Christian community, that is, the church, merely a human community? There is no doubt that the clear testimony of the New Testament takes us to a level beyond human level, because Christians are not only united among themselves, but they are united first in Jesus Christ. This unity with Christ is what makes the union of people possible “in Him.” The center of this unity is the Lord and the power that achieves it is the spirit. Christians join this unity by divine purpose, God’s will, and His power, for their unity descends from above. They are one in Christ, like those who were newly born in Him, “rooted and firmly established in Him” (Colossians 2:7), and like those who received “baptism with one Spirit to be one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13). God established His Church through Jesus Christ our Lord to be “His creation by water and the Word.” Therefore, it is not a human society, but rather a “divine society,” nor is it a group “of this world,” similar to other human groups, but rather a holy community that does not essentially belong to “this world” nor to “this age,” but rather to “the age to come.” “.

Christ himself belongs to this community as its head, not just as its master and lord. He is not above or outside the church, for the church is in him. The church is not just a group that believes in Christ and follows in his footsteps or according to his commandments, but rather the group that resides in him and in which he resides by the Holy Spirit. God chose Christians, “born them again,” and recreated them, but He did not just give them a new pattern, but He gave them a new principle: the new life in Christ by the Holy Spirit. They are a “special people,” whom God “purchased for himself.” The basic point is that the Christian community, i.e. the Church (ekklesia), constitutes a communion in the sacraments (communion sacris) and a “communion in the sanctities,” that is, in the Holy Spirit, or even a “communion of saints” (communio sanctorum). The unity of the Church is achieved through the sacraments. The sacraments of baptism and thanksgiving are the “social sacraments” of the Church, and through them the true meaning of Christian “communion” is always announced and sealed. We say with greater emphasis that the sacraments constitute the Church. Only in them do the Christian community transcend the purely human measurement and become the Church. Therefore, “granting the sacraments correctly” was a matter related to the essence (esse) of the Church. The sacraments must be taken “worthily,” as they are inseparable from the believers’ inner struggle and their spiritual stance. Baptism, for example, must be preceded by remorse and faith. The personal relationship between the person receiving baptism and his Lord must be based first on hearing the word, accepting it, and accepting the message of salvation, because the oath of loyalty to God and His Christ is a basic and necessary condition for granting the sacrament (the original meaning of the word sacramentum is the military oath). He “includes” the catechumens among the brothers based on his faith. Therefore, a person receives the grace of baptism and preserves it through faith, loyalty, and being firmly established in faith and its promise. But the sacraments are true signs of saving grace, not merely signs of professed faith, and external symbols of divine action, not merely symbols of human yearning and loyalty. In the mysteries, our human existence is linked to divine life, and is elevated to it by the life-giving Spirit.

The entire Church is a holy (or consecrated) community, distinct from the (profane) world. It is the holy church, and therefore Paul used the words “church” and “saints” as if they were synonymous. It is worth noting that the word “saint” in the New Testament is often used in the plural form, because holiness in its true sense is linked to the community. It never indicates human deeds, but rather a gift, sanctification, and consecration. It descends from the One Holy One, that is, from God. A person is a saint when he participates in divine life. Holiness is available to individuals only in the life of fellowship, and above all in the “communion of the Holy Spirit.” The phrase “communion of saints” is a tautology and repetition in speech, because an individual cannot be a “saint” except in a life of communion.

We say precisely that the messianic community that Jesus Christ gathered around him was not “the church” before the Passion and Resurrection, before the Father sent “what he had promised,” and before “power came upon it from on high” and “it was baptized in the Holy Spirit” (Luke 24:49, Acts 1:4-5), in the mystery of the day of Pentecost, and before the victory of the cross that was announced in the glorious resurrection. This group was “under the shadow of the Sharia” (sub umbraculo legis), but completion was imminent. The day of Pentecost was to bear witness to the victory of Christ and to put the seal on this victory. “Power from above” entered history, and the “new age” was announced and its realization began. The sacramental life in the Church is a continuation of Pentecost.

The descent of the Spirit was a sublime announcement, because in the “terrible and inexplicable mystery” that took place on the day of Pentecost, the Comforting Spirit came to the world in which it had not been present as it is now, and an abundant spring of living water gushed forth on the earth, that is, in the world that the crucified Lord had saved. And the riser and his reconciliation with him. The kingdom has come, because the Holy Spirit is this kingdom (6). But the “presence” of the Spirit depends on the “departure” of the Son (John 16:7). “The other Comforter” came down to bear witness to the Son, to proclaim his glory, and to put a seal on his victory (John 15:26, 16:7, 14). In the Holy Spirit, the glorified Lord returned to His flock to reside with them always (John 14:8 and 28)... So the day of Pentecost was a secret sanctification of the entire church and its baptism (Acts 1:5). This baptism of fire was instituted by the Lord Himself, because He baptizes “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matthew 3:11, Luke 3:16). The Father sent the Holy Spirit as a deposit into our hearts, and He is the spirit of adoption in Christ Jesus and “the power of Christ” (2 Corinthians 12:9). Through the Holy Spirit we acknowledge that Jesus is Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3). The work of the Spirit in believers is to make them members of the body of Christ and to baptize them to be one body (1 Corinthians 12:13), that is, the body of Christ. Saint Athanasius says: “Since we have been given the drink of the Spirit, we are drinking Christ.” “The rock was Christ.” (7).

Through the Holy Spirit, believers are united with Christ, united in Him, and become members of His body, the one body of Christ: This wonderful simile that Paul mentioned in various places to describe the mystery of Christian existence is the best testimony to the experience of affection in the Apostolic Church. He did not mention this analogy by accident or agreement, because it is the summary of faith and experience. The Apostle Paul emphasized the believers’ union with their Lord, and their participation in His fullness. St. John Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the fourth verse of the third chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, indicated that Paul, in all his writings, was seeking to show the believers “participating with him (i.e., Christ) in all things,” “so he spoke of the head and the body so that this would appear.” the Union" (8). Perhaps the experience of the sacrament of thanksgiving inspired this phrase (see 1 Corinthians 10:17), and it was even used to suggest its secret meaning, that is, the Church of Christ is one in the sacrament of thanksgiving, because this sacrament is Christ himself, who mystically resides in the church as his body. The Church is a body, an organic unit, and much more than a group. Perhaps the word “living body or entity” is the best modern translation of the word “to soma” used by the Apostle Paul.

Rather, the Church is the body and “fullness” of Christ. Body and fullness (to soma to pleroma). These two words are intertwined and interconnected in Paul's thought. The one explains the other: the Church “is the body and its fullness, and he fills all things in all things” (Ephesians 1:23). The Church is the body of Christ, because it is his sequel. John Chrysostom explains Paul’s idea in this sense, saying: “The church will be the fullness of Christ just as the head is the fullness of the body and just as the body is the fullness of the head.” Christ did not remain alone because “he prepared the entire human race to follow him, cling to him, and follow in his footsteps.” Chrysostom confirms this, saying: “Look at him (that is, at Paul) and how he appears to us as needing everything, that is, his body. So it is complete with everything. The head and the body are complete when we are all united and united.” (9). In other words, the Church is the extension of the Holy Incarnation and its “fullness.” Rather, it is the extension of the life of the incarnate Son with “everything that happened for us, the crucifixion, the grave, the resurrection after three days, the ascension into heaven, and sitting at the right hand of the Father” (The Mass of John Chrysostom, Prayer for the Sanctification of the Sacrifices ).

The incarnation is completed in the church, because the church in a sense is Christ Himself in the fullness of Him who brings together all (see 1 Corinthians 12:12). This unity between the Church and Christ was referred to and defended by Augustine, who said: “Not for the sake of making us Christians only, but for the sake of making us Christs.” If he is the head, then we are the members: “The complete human being is composed of him and of us, Christ and the Church,” because “Christ It is not in the head or the body (only), but the perfect Christ is the body and the head together.” (10). And the phrase “the perfect Christ.” (11) (totus christus), which Augustine repeated and whose basic and favorite idea was certainly inspired by Saint Paul: “When I speak of Christians in terms of all, I understand that they are one in one Christ. You are many, but you are one: we are many and one also.” (12). “Our Lord Jesus Christ is not only in Himself, but in us.” (13)“There is only one man until the end of time.” (14).

The basic conviction in all of these words is clear: Christians are united with Christ, and Christ resides in them, and this intimate bond is the secret of the Church. The Church is, as it were, the place of the saving presence of the Risen Lord in a redeemed world. “The body of Christ is Christ himself.” The Church is Christ because after the Resurrection he became present among us and meets us on this earth (15). In this sense, we say: Christ is the Church, “because he himself is the Church, which he joined to himself by the mystery of his body.” (16). In the teaching of Karl Adam: “Christ, the Lord, is the true self of the Church.” (17).

The Church is the unity of the life of multiple gifts, and the source of this unity is hidden in the mystery of the Lord’s Supper and in the mystery of the Day of Pentecost. The day of Pentecost continues in the church and continues in the apostolic succession. It is, as it were, not only the legal structure of the Church. The priesthood (or “hierarchy”) is a principle based on gifts, “sacramental service,” and “divine management.” The priesthood is not only a legal position, or an institutional structure in the church, but rather an indispensable structural image, insofar as the church is a body and a living entity. Priests are not “employees” assigned to the community or leaders or representatives of the “mass of believers” or “the people” or “the parish” only. They do not work “in the person of the Church” (in persona ecclesiae) only, but rather “in the person of Christ” first (in persona Christi). They are “representatives” of Christ himself, not believers. In them and through them, the head of the body and the high priest of the New Testament completes, fulfills and completes his eternal pastoral and priestly work. He is the only true priest in the Church. The others are the servants of His secrets. They stand in His place before the congregation. Since the body is one in its head only, and since its joints are healed and united with this head and in it, the priesthood in the church is the priesthood of union. In the priesthood, the body does not only appear organically united, but rather it appears rooted and rooted in it, without any prejudice to the “equality” of the believers, who are in the form of the “equality” of the cells of the living body, which is not destroyed by the structural difference between them: all cells are equal, but they differ functionally, and this Difference serves organic unity and makes it more comprehensive and cohesive. The unity of every parish stems from the unity in the Eucharistic food. As for the priest who administers the sacrament of thanksgiving, he is the servant and builder of the unity of the Church. But there is another function that transcends it. This function is to ensure the ecumenical and comprehensive unity of the entire Church in space and time. It is the episcopal office and the episcopal service. The bishop has the authority to lay hands. This authority is not given to him only as a legal privilege, but rather constitutes a sacramental power that transcends the power given to the priest. Since he is the bishop, a “layer of hands,” he is the builder of church unity on a broader scale. Therefore, the Last Supper and the Day of Pentecost are inextricably linked. The Comforter Spirit descended after the Son was glorified in his death and resurrection. But they are still two secrets so different that we cannot combine them. In this way the priesthood differs from the episcopate. In the episcopate, the Day of Pentecost becomes general and continuous, and in the undivided episcopate of the Church (or “one episcopate.” episcopatus unus - in Cyprian’s expression), the unity of the Church in the place is preserved. Each local church is included in the fullness of the universal Church and is connected to the past and to all ages through and in its bishop. Every church grows within its scope, transcends its borders, and unites organically with all other churches. Apostolic succession is not based on the legal basis of the unity of the Church as much as it is based on its mystical basis. It is not a guarantee of historical continuity or administrative cohesion, but rather the best way to preserve the secret identity of this body throughout the ages. But the priesthood is never separated from the body, because it exists in it and is linked to its structure. In the church, priestly gifts are given (see 1 Corinthians 12).

The Church Fathers in the East and West paid great attention to Paul's concept of the body of the church and interpreted its content, but after that it became somewhat forgotten. (18). The time is right today for us to return to the experience of the early church, which can give us a solid ground for modern theological writing. There are other similarities and metaphors that Saint Paul mentions in other places in the New Testament for the same purpose, that is, to confirm the pure organic unity between Christ and his servants. But the body image remains more comprehensive and influential than all of these multiple images, because it is the strongest expression of the basic vision. (19). In fact, we should not put too much emphasis on any analogy, because the idea of a living (entity) body remains limited when we apply it to the church. The church is composed of human beings, and therefore we cannot consider them merely elements or cells in the whole body, because each one of them is directly united with Christ and His Father, and we must not sacrifice what is personal and dissolve it in what is collective, nor dissolve what is total in “impersonality.” The idea of a “living body” must be complemented by the idea of the unity of persons in whom the mystery of the Holy Trinity is reflected (John 17:21, 23). This is the core of “collectivism” and “collectivism” (sobornost). (20). This is the main reason that leads us to prefer Christological unity in the theology of the Church more than the approach centered around the Holy Spirit (Pneumatological). (21). The church as a whole has its personal status in Christ only, because it is neither an embodiment of the Holy Spirit nor a mere participation in the Holy Spirit, but rather it is the body of Christ and the incarnate Lord. This saves us from impersonalism without slipping into human personification. Christ the Lord is the one Head of the Church and He is its one Master “For through him the whole building is held together and grows to be a holy temple in the Lord, and through him you also are being built together to become a dwelling place for God in the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:21-22).

The Christology of the Church will not lead us into the fog of false speculations or into dreamy mysticism, because it provides us with the only, stable and positive basis for correct theological research. On this basis, the theology of the Church finds its appropriate and organic place in the structure of the divine plan of salvation. All that remains is the search for a comprehensive vision of the secret of our salvation and the salvation of the world.

Finally, we must mention this distinction, which is that the Church is still in the “state of becoming” (in statu viae), but it is first in the “state of patriotism” (in statu patriae). She has a double life in heaven and on earth (22). The Church is a visible historical community and the body of Christ at the same time. It is both the Church of the saved and the Church of miserable sinners. Historically, it has not yet achieved its final goal, but its final truth has been announced and revealed and has become truly accessible to everyone, despite its temporary historical incompleteness in form. The church is a secret community, and this secrecy is no less important than “terminality.” The end (to eschaton) does not originally indicate the final event in the series of temporal events, because it is the maximum (and decisive) event. This event takes place in the midst of historical events. What “does not belong to this world” has become here “in this world,” and it does not abolish the world, but rather gives it a new meaning and a new value and restores its old honor. It is only an expectation and a “sign” to the final achievement. But the Spirit resides in the Church, and this is its secret: “The visible community composed of weak people is the living body of divine grace.” (23).

New creation:

The mission of the historical Church is to announce another world “to come,” because it bears witness to the new life that was announced and revealed in Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior. She does this in word and deed. The true proclamation of the good news is in the practice of new life, in order to demonstrate faith by works (see Matthew 5:16).

The church is more than a group of missionaries, a teaching society, or an evangelistic council. Its duty is not limited to inviting people, but extends to bringing them into the new life to which it bears witness. It is a body for evangelization, and the field of its evangelization is the entire world. But the goal of its missionary activity is not simply to convey some ideas and convictions to people, or even to impose a certain system of life on them, but rather to introduce them first to the new truth and guide and lead them, through their faith and repentance, to Christ Himself, until they are born again in Him and in Him by water and the Spirit. . Thus, the service of the Word is completed through the service of the sacraments.

“Conversion” is a new beginning, which must be followed by a long process. It is the duty of the Church to organize the new life of the converts and to present to them, as it has always done, the new model of existence and the new way of life “for the world to come.” The Church is here in this world for its salvation. Therefore, she must deny him and resist him. God wants the whole human being, and the Church bears witness to this will of God that was revealed in Christ. The Christian must be a “new creation,” and therefore he will not be able to find a stable place for himself within the confines of the “old world.” In this sense, the Christian position is always revolutionary in relation to the “old order” that exists in “this world.” Because the Church of Christ is in this world, and does not belong to “this world,” it is in constant conflict with it, even if it only claims to reform the existing system. In all cases, the change must be radical and comprehensive.

Historical contradictions:

The historical weakness of the Church does not hide the nature of the total challenge that it adheres to by its ephemeral nature, as it always challenges itself. There is a contradiction between historical life and the mission of the Church. This contradiction will not be resolved at the historical level. It is a constant reference to what is “to come,” and it is rooted in the practical choice that the Church had to face from the beginning of her historical pilgrimage. Either it was established as a “total” group limited to its members and seeks to fulfill all the “temporal” and “spiritual” needs of believers, without paying attention to the existing system and leaving anything to the outside world, meaning that it is completely separate from the world, abandoning it and rejecting all external authority, or It was created to Christianize the entire world, to subject all life to the Christian system, to reform and reorganize civil life according to Christian principles, and to build the Christian city. In the history of the Church, we can trace the two simple options: fleeing into the desert and building the Christian empire. The first option was not only practiced in all aspects of monastic life, but also in other Christian groups and various groups. The second option was the main line taken by Christians in the East and West, until opposing secularization arose. But this option has not lost its hold on many people these days. They have generally proven to be failures, so one must acknowledge the reality of their common problem and their common goal. Christianity is not an individual religion, and its concern is not only “the salvation of the soul.” Rather, it is the Church, that is, the community of God and His new people, which conducts its one life according to its own principles. It is not permissible to divide this life into several sections, some of which are dominated by other, heterogeneous principles. It is difficult to transform spiritual leadership in the Church into occasional guidance given to individuals or groups living under conditions that contradict the life of the Church. The legitimacy of these circumstances must first be called into question. We must not avoid or turn away from the task of recreating or reconstructing the whole structure of human life. A person cannot serve two masters, because dual loyalty is a very weak solution. Here inevitably comes the option we referred to earlier, because everything else is a blatant compromise or a reduction in the basic, comprehensive demands. Either it is the duty of Christians to leave the world in which there is another Lord besides Christ (whatever the name this Lord bears: Caesar, Money, or anything else) and in which the system and purpose of life differ from what was declared in the Gospel, that is, to leave it and build a society. Separately, or to change the outside world and make it the Kingdom of God and introduce the principles of the Gospel into civil legislation.

There is an internal harmony in the two approaches, and therefore their separation remains inevitable and Christians are forced to take two different paths. Then the unity of the Christian mission is shattered, internal discord grows in the church, and an unnatural separation occurs between the monks (or elite converts) and the general public (including the clergy). This is more dangerous than turning the church into “clericalism.” But in the end this is only a sign of a fundamental contradiction. The problem will not be solved historically. The correct solution transcends history and belongs to the “age to come.” In this era, that is, at the level of history, we cannot provide a legal rule, but only a rule for organization, that is, a principle of distinction, not a principle of construction.

Each approach contradicts itself. In the first approach, the experience of sectarianism is inevitable, and the ecumenical and “universal” feature of the Christian message becomes dim, and is often rejected, because the world falls out of consideration. All attempts to directly Christianize the world under a Christian empire or state led almost to the secularization of Christianity itself (24).

Nowadays, no one calls for the possibility of converting all people to ecumenical monasticism or achieving a truly Christian ecumenical state. The Church remains “in the world,” a body whose elements are different from the world, and therefore the old tension increases. Every person in the church feels the ambiguity of the situation and suffers because of it. We can arrive at a practical approach in the present age only through a correct understanding of the nature and essence of the Church. The failure of utopian expectations will not make Christian hope exist, because the Lord Jesus the King has come in power and because his kingdom is coming.

---

(1) See

Robert Grosche, Pilgernde Kirche, Feriburg im Breisgau 1938, p, 27.

(2) See

Segius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, 1935, p. 12.
Stefan Zankow, Das Orthodoxe Christentum des Ostens, Berlin 1928, p. 65.

(3) See

M. D. Koster, Ecclesiologie im Werend (Pader-born 1940).

(6) See Saint Gregory of Nyssa, “On the Lord’s Prayer” 3 (Greek Council of the Fathers, Min. 44, 1157-1160).

(7) Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, his first letter to Serapion” (Greek Collection of Fathers, Min. 26, 576).

(8) Saint John Chrysostom, “The Seventh Sermon on the Interpretation of the Epistle to the Colossians” (Greek Fathers Collection, Min. 62, 75).,

(9) Saint John Chrysostom, “The Third Sermon on the Interpretation of the Epistle to the Ephesians” (Greek Fathers Collection, Min. 62, 29).

(10) Augustine, “Written on the Gospel of John” 21, 7 (Latin Collection of Fathers, Min. 35, 1568). See Saint John Chrysostom, “On the Interpretation of the First Epistle to the Corinthians,” Sermon 30, (Greek Fathers Collection, Min. 61, 279-23).

(11) Augustine, the same book, (Latin Fathers Collection, Minn. 28, 1622).

(12) Augustine, “On the Interpretation of the Psalms,” in Psalm 127, 3 (Latin Fathers Collection, Min. 37, 1679).

(13) Ibid., in Psalm 90, 1, 9 (Min. 37, 1157).

(14) The same meadow, in Psalm 85, 5 (Min. 37, 1083).

(15) See

A. Nygren, Corpus Christi, in En Bok om Kyr Kamav Svenska a teologer, Lund 1943, p. 20.

(16) Saint Ilarion in his interpretation of Psalm 125, 6 (Latin Fathers Collection, Min. 9, 688).

(17) See

Karl Adam, Das Wesen des Katholizismus, 4 Asugabe, 1927, p. 24.

(18) See

E. Mersch, Le Corps Mystique du Christ, Etudes de Theologie Historique, II Louvain 1936.

(19) The image of the bride and her secret marriage to Christ (Ephesians 5:23…) expresses the intimate union with Christ. The image of the house built of many stones, whose cornerstone is Christ (Ephesians 2:20..., 1 Peter 2:6) is directed to the same goal. Many become one and the tower appears as if it was built from one stone (Hermas the Shepherd, Vision 3, 2, 6, 8). Thus, we must look at “the people of God” as if they were a living, integrated body. There is no reason to be bothered by the variety of vocabulary used. Because the main idea is the same in all cases.

(20) See: George Florevsky, “The University of the Church,” in the third chapter of this book

(21) Just as is the case with Khomyakov or with Müller (Die Einheit in der Kirche).

(22) See Augustine in his “Pamphlet on the Gospel of John” 124, 5 (Latin Collection of Fathers, Min. 35, 19, 7).

(23) See Khomyakov’s article “On the Church,” in the English translation:

W. J. Birkeck, Russia and the English Church, 1895. Ch. 23, pp. 193-222.

(24) For more detail, see Gore Florevsky, “Contradictions of Christian History,” which will be published in the collection of works by Father Florevsky.