If I recall correctly, at least one of the people who put forth this number envisioned them “standing in a perfect square” – apparently not realizing that 144,000 is not in fact a perfect square, as are 14,400 and 1,440,000 (120 squared and 1200 squared, respectively).
An exhaustive yet very entertaining history can be found in this book
Interesting question, with a variety of answers. (Note that yBeayf, tomndebb, and beagledave, along with a couple of Baptists, will be compelled by their beliefs to disagree with portions of what I say in this post – it’s an attempt at objective historical analysis on fiercely controverted ecclesiology.)
The original church was founded shortly after the Day of Pentecost by the Apostles, based on what the Holy Spirit had accomplished on that day. (Many churches refer to Pentecost as “the birthday of the Church” because of the events in Acts 2.)
Very early on, disagreements arose as to the relationship of Jesus Christ and God, and the people who held Him to be merely a prophet split off as the Ebionites. AFAIK no devout Ebionites survive to the present.
The others accepted the idea that Jesus was God incarnate as a human being, that He worshipped God in the guise of His Heavenly Father, and that the Holy Spirit was God as well, and distinct from and sent by one or both of the other two – three distinct Persons. And yet one God. After disagreements over this logical conundrum, the doctrine of the Trinity was evolved to explain the paradox. The Arians held Jesus not to be God in the sense that the Father was, but rather the leading created being. Though no Arian groups from that time remain around today, many people who claim to be Christian actually hold Arian beliefs.
How Jesus the human being and the Son of God were interrelated was the next major question – and the answers got equally interesting. Nestorius preached an “adoptionist” theology in which the Christ nature was taken on by the man Jesus; the Nestorians remain a small church, largely in Iraq, down to the present (Church of the East and of the Assyrians; Saddam’s infamous “Christian front man” was a Nestorian). The Monophysites held that Jesus had a human body but an exclusively-divine nature and will; no strict Monophysites remain in the present. Orthodox Christianity held that Jesus had both divine and human natures, united in a “hypostatic union,” while the Miaphysites, a modification of the Monophysites, held that Jesus had a single nature that merged human and divine into one. The Oriental Orthodox (as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox), including the Copts of Egypt and Ethiopia, the Jacobite Syrians, the Armenian Church, and the majority of the Mar Thoma Christians of India, hold to Miaphysite beliefs.
Referring back to the large Church that held to the orthodox belief in the equality of the Trinity and the two natures in Christ, it was governed by bishops who held allegiance to one of five patriarchates located in major ancient metropolises and founded by an apostle or evangelist. They had a strict precedence between them, with the Patriarch of the West, Bishop of Rome, at their head, and the Patriarch of Constantinople second in honor.
As time passed, the liturgy, customs, and to some extent the piety and beliefs of the two halves of the Roman Empire, the Latin-speaking West and the Greek-speaking East, diverged. And with the fall of the Western Empire and its replacement by formerly barbarian states, this divergence was exacerbated.
Ultimately representatives of each of the two top Patriarchs excommunicated the other, causing the split between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism that continues to the present. This division had been growing for centuries when the formal excommunication occurred.
Roman Catholics would claim that the East withdrew from allegiance to the Pope; the Orthodox would claim that the West installed a hierarchical structure under the Pope in place of the collegial one that they claim was present from the start and which they preserve. Both claims have slight validity (IMO the Orthodox a bit more so) and some grounds on which they exaggerate the historical truth.
Several hundred years later, abuses in the late medieval Western Church caused reformers to attempt to demand changes, and when those efforts failed, they split off into their own churches. This was the Reformation. In a number of cases, entire pre-existing national churches withdrew from communion with the Pope; this was the case in the Netherlands, Geneva, England, Scotland, and Sweden, among others.
Theological disputes between the Reformers and their descendants led to additional splits, resulting in the plethora of denominations today. A number of people called for return to “the church of the apostles” as they understood it to have been; the adherents of Campbell and Barton gave rise to the Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ; the story of Joseph Smith Jr. is pretty well known on this board; and there were numerous other groups.
There is a story prevalent among one group of Baptists that there was a secret group of Christians coexisting alongside the historical Church which preserved the congregational, believers’ baptism system that characterizes the Baptists until Reformation times. The problem with this concept is that the historical evidence for it is, to be gracious, extremely slender.
So the “first church” can be variably understood to be (a) a group without the theological differentiators that evolved later, (b) the Catholics, © the Orthodox, or (d) a church that was later corrupted and still later reformed back to the apostles’ original view. Take your pick; in GQ, that’s the best possible answer to the question. (GD can get into more details on this, if you like.)
Seek and ye shall find:
It figures 
; thanks! (Can you find me any Montanists on the Internet? :D)
I can attest to at least one person failing this test! :eek:
My father, a Jewish atheist, once consented to attend an Episcopal service with my then-stepmother. The priest was apparently blessing the congregation quite vigorously with holy water. My father, who had seruptitiously slipped a magazine or a novel into his hymnal, failed to notice until a drop flew past his glasses and struck him directly in the eye. His audible response to this, although tactfully ignored by the priest and the congregation, may have caused some of them to suspect that Satan was being battled more tangibly that evening than Episcopalians are wont to imagine!
Just thought I would throw this out: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that it has the fullness of truth, meaning all truth yet revealed. Other religious organizations have parts of the truth, and should be respected for that. Nevertheless, the ordinances (sacraments) and rites of other religious organizations are invalid. A person joining the Church would have to be baptized regardless of how, when, where, and by whom the person was previously baptized. Because of the Latter-day Saint view of heaven, non-Latter-day Saint Christians will not be going to Hell: they’ll be going to the level of Heaven that most Latter-day Saints will be going to. (The highest level of Heaven only a few people will be able to enter.) The Church also practices closed communion (although it does not make this explicit for visitors). The Church encourages working with Christians of other denominations (and people of other religions) for good causes.
At Midnight Mass, the pastor of the Catholic church I was at made it quite explicit that only Catholics who are prepared (by confession, if necessary, I presume) were permitted to receive Communion. The Mass’s program also had a prominent part stating such.
I had Catholic communion only once: while on a class trip to Spain, I found the cathedral at Sevilla (I believe); Mass was being prayed there. I partook of Communion not knowing I should not have. Ever since I learned the Catholic Church practices closed communion, I have not partaken of Communion in a Catholic church.
The Orthodox also practice closed communion. However, the antidoron (blessed bread) distributed after the service is for everyone. I’ve only been to Greek Orthodox churches, so I don’t know if Orthodox churches of other ethnicities (Romanian, Russian, Serbian, etc.) distribute antidoron.
WRS
I am extraordinarily honored and blessed to have been allowed to fully participate in a Eucharist celebrated by a priest of the Russian Orthodox Church (the Russian one–not the OCA). There were several non-Orthodox Christians present. I knew that the priest would have known that many of the communicants were non-Orthodox, and did not refuse them, but I asked nevertheless whether a Protestant was welcome to communicate. I was told (by the deacon, as I recall) that I was.
I believe that as long as I live, whatever my faith, that will remain one of my cherished memories.
[hijack]
May I ask why this so? What was so different about this religious service? [/hijack]
WRS
That would be Ellen White, founder of the Seventh Day Adventist church.
The number 144,000 comes from Revelation 7; 12,000 from each of the 12 tribes. Revelation 7:4:
Revelation 7:1 sort of implies a square formation:
But Ellen White said:
It does sound pretty silly. Then again, she seemed to use the word “perfect” at every opportunity, so maybe she hadn’t intended to imply a “perfect square” in the mathematical sense.
If I remember correctly, Jehovah’s Witnesses initially believed that only 144,000 people would be saved. When the End did not come as it was prophesied and they began to have more than 144,000 members, they revised their beliefs: there would be 144,000 people who would rule with Christ on the new earth, and the rest of the saved will inhabit the new, paradisical earth.
It think they do not believe in the salvation of Christians other than their own (hence, their aggressive missionary work).
WRS
Not wanting to start a GD over JW theology, or the theology of any group that interprets the ‘144,000’ to mean just 144,000 will be saved; I though it would be good for people to see the actual text:
Now, it would seem that only 144,000 are in heaven being saved. However, note that, literally, the number represents the number of Jews who are saved. Literally, 144,000 Jews. If one allows for poetic license, we have the number 12 (a perfect number in Hebrew numerology) squared (a sign of fullness and perfection) times a thousand (almost innumerable, the way we would say, ‘millions’). Poetically, this is just a mystical way of saying ‘millions and millions,’ by our modern standards (since we’re used to dealing with larger numbers than the ancients).
However, the biblical quote doesn’t end there, the following text is:
So… in addition to the fullness of saved Jews, is the even greater and innumerable number of saved Gentiles. I’m not sure how the JW would interpret the rest of the passage in light of the explicitness of the Jewishness of the 144,000 and the rest of the throngs of saved Christians.
Peace.
I just wanted to add that many people who remain behind in the pews may indeed be Catholics. IANADS (doctrinal scholar) but I don’t think there’s a requirement that you must take Communion every week. I remember a handout we got at church detailing the core responsibilities of a Catholic said something along the lines of “take Communion at least once a year if no serious sin has been committed.” I didn’t take Communion on Christman because it was my first time at Mass since over a year ago and I haven’t been to Confession in even longer (there are some sins that I’m committing and will continue to commit that I’m not very sorry for). I know my stepmother does not take Communion because my father (who was a Lutheran but was married to my mother in a Catholic church) never got an annulment from my mother. Thus in the Church’s eyes she’s “married” to an already married man and sinning thusly. Since she’s not truly sorry and because she will continue to do so, she can’t go to Confession.
BTW, regarding Eucharist at Catholic weddings: A Catholic wedding ceremony need not include an actual full Mass including Eucharistic Liturgy. If both parties are Catholic, it is strongly preferred that they do the Full Monty, but it’s not absolute.
Now there’s something I’ve never seen at church! :eek:
The Seventh Day Adventist church teaches that 144.000 is a symbolic number of the full assembly of the redeemed. Maybe Ellen G. was more literal about it, or maybe she was using the 144,000 as representative of all Christians.
The group which places the big emphasis on the 144,000 is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And they don’t teach that those outside that number are damned.
They teach that only the 144,000 will rule in Heaven with Christ, while the rest of redeemed humanity will enjoy eternal life on Paradise Earth.
My take is that the 144,000 represents the original Jewish-Christian Church and perhaps that remnant of Jesus-believing Jews which has always existed within the Church and may well come into prominence in the Church of the End-Times.
All Byzantine-rite churches distribute antidoron. Most allow anybody to take it, but stricter Russian and Greek monastic churches will limit it to only Orthodox or catechumens.
If this is true (and, unfortunately, I don’t doubt that it is), the priest was almost certainly acting without the blessing of his bishop; if the actions of the priest and deacon became known to that bishop, they would very likely be deposed. If the bishop were in fact allowing non-Orthodox to commune, he himself could very well be deposed by his synod. The Orthodox priest is considered the guardian of the chalice; at his ordination, he is presented with a piece of the Body and told that he will have to account for it on the day of judgment. Many Orthodox priests will even refuse communion to people they do not recognize, lest it be given to a non-Orthodox or somebody who is under a penance and forbidden to commune.
I am curious to what diocese this took place in, what year, and if you happen to know who the bishop of that diocese was at the time. Also, was it the Russian Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, or the Russian Church Abroad?
You certainly may ask. There is no guarantee, however, that I will answer promptly!
The memory is particularly meaningful to me because I believe that the impared communion between the various branches of Christ’s family is a great tragedy. I believe that the Eucharist, if it is indeed a Sacrament, is not a recognition of human unity within the church, but the very means of grace by which (along with, and in fulfilment of, Baptism) Christ through his Spirit makes us “one with [him], one with each other, and one in ministry to the world until Christ comes in final victory and we feast at his heavenly banquet.” The Eastern Orthodox Churches are perhaps the oldest liturgical and spiritual communities within the church universal. The rift between them and the churches of the west is among the oldest and deepest wounds dividing the body of Christ. To have been present at and to have participated in an by which Christ through his presence brought some measure of healing to this ancient wound is a profoundly meaningful thing to me.
Additionaly and incidentally, yes, there were several things different about this service (and all Orthodox services) than a typical Protestant service. Especially vivid in my mind is the distinctive manner of communicating. (yBeayf can elaborate on how widespread this practice is. I know it is not unusual in Eastern churches.) The bread is divided into small cubes and placed in large chalice filled with wine. Aesthetically, the elements in this form convey powerfully the reality of Christ’s body and blood. At the moment of communion, the communicant kneels before the priest and, looking up, opens his mouth. Without touching the communicant’s lips or tounge, the priest uses a long-handled spoon to transfer a portion of the elements into the communicant’s mouth. Nothing has ever more vividly conveyed to my mind my relationship to Christ than the experience of feasting on his body and blood as might a child being fed by his mother. It is an amazingly powerful and altogether commendable practice for the distribution of the elements, and it lent a vividness and a depth to my experience that has remained with me in memory.
yBeaf, to answer your questions, let me first of all say that although I strenuously disagree with the Orthodox position on closed communion (insofar as I understand it–I am much more aware of the Catholic position, with which I also disagree), I do respect it. I was very hesitant about communicating in that instance. I would never impose myself in a service or attempt to receive without invitation. I believed that in deferring to the priest and deacon that I was acting in good faith and respecting the integrity of the service. I will be more than a little heartbroken if I discover that the service was not only unusual but irregualr and (from an Orthodox point of view) invalid.
The service took place at Taize, the site of an eccumenical Christian brotherhood. I avoided mentioning the place (although I have related the story before on this board), because the Brothers are wary of advertising Taize as a place of exception, where this sort of thing happens regularly, but in fact, it rather is. Worship includes a daily Eucharist celebrated by a Catholic priest, received by all the Brothers (who come from both Catholic and Protestant backgrounds) and whomever among the many visitors wish to receive. Blessed bread is made available for those unable to communicate (a direct adaptation of the practice of distributing the antidoron at Orthodox services), but non-Catholics are not discouraged from communicating. The situation has received at least the tacit approval of the Roman Catholic authorities, no doubt in part because of the personal friendship between Brother Roger, the community’s founder, and the current Pope (also his predecessor John XXIII).
It was in either 2001 or 2003. There was a group of Russian Orthodox visiting from either the Russian Federation or the Ukraine. The service was not part of the regular Taize worship, but was held specifically for the group, in the small village church near the Community. I asked one of the Brothers whether the group would be celebrating a Eucharist and whether I would be welcome. I was told that I could attend, but would not be able to communicate. As I said, many people showed up, and all were allowed to communicate.
Taize is well known as a place of eccumenical reconciliation and pilgrimage. It has longstanding ties to the Orthodox communitiy. In 1962, the Patriarch of Constantinople sent a nun, sister Gabrielia, to Taize. (cite.) In the same year, Metropolitan Nicodim of Leningrad visited. (cite.) Taize has welcomed several Metropolitans, and receives letters of blessing from Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople. (The latest such letters can be read here.) You can read about Taize and the Orthodox church here (a Coptic site, but the article seems to take a broadly Orthodox perspective) and here (Catholic, but the article focuses partly on Orthodox relations with Taize.)
I offer this information not to justify what took place (it is not my place to do so) but to provide you with as much of the context of the service as I can.
Alan, I thank you for your reply. From your description, it does not look like you did anything wrong; you were told you could commune, and so you did. Likewise, the Eucharist would have been valid – we are not Donatists. I still would bet, though, that that priest’s hierarch did not know of his actions – Russia and Ukraine are big places, and there are a lot of bishops, not all of whom may be very familiar with Taizé.
More generally speaking, Orthodox hold to a view of the Eucharist broadly similar to the Catholics – it is an expression of a unity of faith and polity that already exists, not a means to that union, with the highest expression of unity being concelebration by two or more hierarchs. This can be seen with the current negotiations between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad – laity are allowed to commune in either church, assuming they are Orthodox and properly disposed, but the hierarchs do not yet concelebrate; that will be the culmination of the reunification process, and an external symbol that the Russian Orthodox Church is once again one, in polity as well as faith.
Polycarp, thank you for that excellent post. It really allowed me to put my own religious upbringing into some kind of context.