04 — The Spirit and the Church

The first of the Spirit’s proper works, and the beginning of the collection’s centre of gravity. This section sets out what the descent of the Spirit constituted on the fiftieth day, in what sense the Church may be called the creation of Pentecost, and why the modern habit of setting free charism against fixed office is a nineteenth-century construction rather than a description of anything the Church has known.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox

Contents

File Description
pentecost-as-the-churchs-birth.md What changed on the day — a company that waits becomes a body that acts; three qualifications of the “birthday” language, from the Church’s prehistory in Israel through her constitution by Christ to her eschatological character; the Kontakion of Pentecost and Babel undone, and why the unity given does not abolish the languages; the divided tongues resting on each, and Lossky’s account of the Spirit’s personalizing work, reported as his; and the strongest Orthodox claim about the day — that it has not stopped, evidenced in the epiclesis, in the numbering of the year, and in the omission and restoration of “O Heavenly King”
charism-and-institution.md Where the opposition came from — Sohm’s Kirchenrecht, Weber’s routinization, Harnack’s reconstruction — named as a modern sociological thesis rather than a neutral description; what the sources show, including that Paul lists governments among the charisms and that ordination is itself called a charisma; Irenaeus’ two-way formula; Montanism as the case in which the Church had to say what she objects to; the twentieth-century eucharistic ecclesiologies of Afanasiev and Zizioulas reported as accounts among others with their critiques named; and the four propositions the Church actually holds, ending with the Donatist point that decides the matter

What Is Deferred

The ecclesiological substance — the marks of the Church, the local and the universal, conciliarity, the canons, the boundaries of the Church, and the reception of converts — belongs to the treatment of the Church and is not duplicated here. This section asks only what the Spirit does in constituting and sustaining her.

The disputes surrounding the modern eucharistic ecclesiologies are reported, not settled. Neither Afanasiev’s nor Zizioulas’ account has the standing of the Church’s teaching, and both have been substantially criticized from within Orthodoxy; the collections devoted to each set out the criticism, and this section agrees with them.

See Also