Request for Clarification about Orthodox Teachings/History

[gurneyhalleck1]

Schmemman isn't "finding a way around the problem" but rather speaking consistently with history and the patristics in that Eucharistic Ecclesiology was the model of polity for the ancient Church, not a universal one.

Have you ever noticed the strongest, most passionate, extensive universal ecclesiology primacy of the Pope arguments are made by POPES THEMSELVES!!!

Is Christ visible in such a way that we don't need Bishops or other leaders in the Church? The EO scholar Alexander Schmemann says that Orthodox apologists claim that the universal Church doesn't need a visible head because Christ is its head. Schmemann says this is nonsense, and that if it were true it would eliminate the need for Bishops.

Schemann's way around this problem is to claim that the Church is not a universal organism. He says that if the Church were a universal organism, then it would need a supreme, visible, universal pastor, as the Catholic Church claims.

 

[prodromos]

Here are some links to some of the brief quotations I've seen.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/browse/Papacy
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/papacy.htm

Quote mines seem to be a peculiarly Catholic phenomenon.

Have you ever wondered why that is?

 

[truefiction1]

Isn't there the same danger in "Christ is the head" (as opposed to hierarchs) as Sola Scriptura? Until he actually returns that line of reasoning can lead anywhere.

No, as 2000+ years of Church life that will continue forever bears witness, Holy Tradition prevents the Church from being led just anywhere. It is the "individualistic" spirit that lies beneath the philosophy of Sola Scriptura that has led to the problems of Western Christianity, which do also effect us, because things don't happen in a vacuum, and so many of us live our daily lives within cultures built upon that same spirit, making it difficult, nearly impossible, for us to know that Holy Tradition is.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Isn't there the same danger in "Christ is the head" (as opposed to hierarchs) as Sola Scriptura? Until he actually returns that line of reasoning can lead anywhere.

only if the heirarchs had no ministry that Christ works through. if they do, then it is nowhere near as dangerous as Sola Scriptura.

 

[patricius79]

Is English your first language? I know you have said that you do not read well and I do not want to make any assumptions as to how detailed I must make my responses. St. Cyprian points to St. Peter as the type of a bishop who is the center of unity within his diocese, he is not claiming that Peter as a person is the source of unity for the Church rather he states that Jesus, beginning with one, shows the unity and oneness of the Church through the Bishops. As the article states:

"The unity with which St. Cyprian deals is not so much the unity of the whole Church, the necessity of which he rather postulates, as the unity to be kept in each dioceseby union with the bishop; the unity of the whole Church is maintained by the close union of the bishops who are "glued to one another", hence whosoever is not with his bishop is cut off from the unity of the Church and cannot be united to Christ; the type of the bishop is St. Peter, the first bishop."​

As for St. Cyprian using this of Rome, I believe you missed the last portion of the Catholic Encyclopedia article which ends, "It has been a mistake to find any reference to Rome in this passage."

Thank you Isshinwhat,

Yes, English is my first and only language. But I have chronic fatigue syndrome, which includes mental fatigue and difficulty reading and processing.

That's interesting about the Catholic Encyclopedia article. It's also interesting, though, that the Orthodox scholar Nicholas Afanassieff says that Cyprian connected the idea of the Chair of Peter not only with all the Bishops, but in a special way with Rome, which he saw as the root and the matrix (womb) of the Catholic Church, and the principal Church from which priestly unity takes its source. Afanassieff says that Cyprian saw the Bishop of Rome as the direct heir of Simon Rock, and the other Bishops as heirs only indirectly.

It's also interesting to see the difference between Origen and Cyprian. Origen says the Church is built on Simon Rock, and then becomes very allegorical and says something to the effect that anybody who confesses Christ is a Rock, like Simon Rock.

But if one takes Origen very literally, then that would mean not only that we don't need Rome, but that we don't need Bishops or any leaders.

As I understand it, Origen was a genius but was overly allegorical and very seriously heretical.

Also, Afanassieff--similar to Schmemann--says that if the Church is a single body, then it must have a single, supreme Bishop as its head.

Schemann likewise says that if the Church is a universal body, then the Catholic idea of the Papacy is both logical and necesary.

Instead of accepting this, they deny that the Church is a universal body and emphasize "Eucharistic ecclesiology", which is an emphasis on the completeness of each local Bishopric.

But I don't see how this can work, given that everyone admits that local Bishops are fallible.

Also related to this, I've heard that there are about 15 Orthodox communions. Do they all acknowedge communion with each other. For example, is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in open, reciprocal communion with all the other Orthodox churches?

Peace,

Pat

 

[patricius79]

And I would ask why post Orthodox theologians, who never spoke of the role of St Peter in any way other than how the East had always held him. I have read much Schemann and never got the vibe you are giving off.

And speaking definitively just means that he spoke definitively. It does not mean he has authority over them. St Peter spoke definitively to Christ, and no one thinks Peter has authority over Christ

Hi ArmyMatt,

But couldn't it mean that Simon Rock, in speaking definitively as the Foundation of the Church and the Key-Bearer (Chief Steward), had the authority OF Christ?

As far as Orthodox scholars... you had mentioned that you believe Cyprian was right in his conflict with Pope Stephen. Apparently the Orthodox scholar Afanassieff defends Stephen, saying that Cyprian was trying to impose his will on the Church.

For example, in page 137 of "The Primacy of Peter", Afanassieff says:

"Did Stephen base his actions on a new ecclesiastical ideology, and did Cyprian keep to tradition? It would be more exact that neither of them kept to the traditional idea altogether, and that Cyprian had less respect for it than Stephen".


I'm not trying to pretend that I know much history here at all, but I'm just noticing little things in the book "the Primacy of Peter" (Meyendorff, Schmemann, Afanassief, Kesich, etc)

 

[isshinwhat]

Thank you Isshinwhat,

Yes, English is my first and only language. But I have chronic fatigue syndrome, which includes mental fatigue and difficulty reading and processing.

That's interesting about the Catholic Encyclopedia article. It's also interesting, though, that the Orthodox scholar Nicholas Afanassieff says that Cyprian connected the idea of the Chair of Peter not only with all the Bishops, but in a special way with Rome, which he saw as the root and the matrix (womb) of the Catholic Church, and the principal Church from which priestly unity takes its source. Afanassieff says that Cyprian saw the Bishop of Rome as the direct heir of Simon Rock, and the other Bishops as heirs only indirectly.

It's also interesting to see the difference between Origen and Cyprian. Origen says the Church is built on Simon Rock, and then becomes very allegorical and says something to the effect that anybody who confesses Christ is a Rock, like Simon Rock.

But if one takes Origen very literally, then that would mean not only that we don't need Rome, but that we don't need Bishops or any leaders.

As I understand it, Origen was a genius but was overly allegorical and very seriously heretical.

Also, Afanassieff--similar to Schmemann--says that if the Church is a single body, then it must have a single, supreme Bishop as its head.

Schemann likewise says that if the Church is a universal body, then the Catholic idea of the Papacy is both logical and necesary.

Instead of accepting this, they deny that the Church is a universal body and emphasize "Eucharistic ecclesiology", which is an emphasis on the completeness of each local Bishopric.

But I don't see how this can work, given that everyone admits that local Bishops are fallible.

Also related to this, I've heard that there are about 15 Orthodox communions. Do they all acknowedge communion with each other. For example, is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) in open, reciprocal communion with all the other Orthodox churches?

Peace,

Pat

I don't think you read the entire essay by Fr. Schmemann. The ideas you quoted are Fr. Schmemann's description of a Roman idea of primacy. He begins the very next section by stating:

"Is this ecclesiology acceptable from the Orthodox point of view? The question may seem naive. The Orthodox Church has rejected as heretical the Roman claims and thus has implicitly condemned the ecclesiology which supports them."​

Furthermore he goes on to explain what primacy is:

"The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdictional power but implies that of an "order" of Churches which does not subordinate one Church to another, but which makes is possible for all Churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all thus by fulfilling the mystery of the Body of Christ, the fullness "filling all in all."​

Additionally in regard to a Eucharistic understanding vs. one of universal jurisdiction he explains:

This concept of primacy, as has been said already, is rooted in the "eucharistic ecclesiology" which we believe to be the source of Orthodox canonical and liturgical tradition. As result of its distortion or, at least, "metamorphosis" there appeared another type of ecclesiology which we have termed "universal." It leads necessarily to the understanding and practice of primacy as "supreme power" and therefore, to anuniversal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form.​

I did find a thread from 2002 in an old forum which also mistakes Fr. Schmemann's thesis and even uses the phrase that he had to "work around" certain issues. I suggest you stop using Joe Gallegos and other cut and paste experts and start reading the entire documents for yourself. It is not giving you a good picture of what is going on. If you don't have time for that, then I suggest perhaps cutting back your time here and reading their works as an alternative.

 

[patricius79]

I don't think you read the entire essay by Fr. Schmemann. The ideas you quoted are Fr. Schmemann's description of a Roman idea of primacy. He begins the very next section by stating:

"Is this ecclesiology acceptable from the Orthodox point of view? The question may seem naive. The Orthodox Church has rejected as heretical the Roman claims and thus has implicitly condemned the ecclesiology which supports them."​

Right. As far as I can tell, both Afanassieff and Schemann agree that if the Church is a single body, then it must have a supreme visible head in the form of a universal bishop.

But they reject the idea that the Church is a single body. Instead they focus on the local church as the fullness of the Church. But the problem is that individual Bishops are fallible.

Also, I would like to know if ROCOR, for example, is in communion with all the other Orthodox churches.​

Furthermore he goes on to explain what primacy is:

"The idea of primacy thus excludes the idea of jurisdictional power but implies that of an "order" of Churches which does not subordinate one Church to another, but which makes is possible for all Churches to live together this life of all in each and of each in all thus by fulfilling the mystery of the Body of Christ, the fullness "filling all in all."​

Yes. It seems like both Schmemann and Afanassieff are very big on rejecting any kind of supremacy--or "jurisdictional power"-- in the Church.

But then why not take it further and deny the Church law authority of the Bishops themselves?

I read this essay at the Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America which said that the idea of Canon law is a legal system which is historically concieved as the foundation of the church. But he (Rev. Emannuel Clapsis) indicates that Schmemann rejects this canon law system (as I understand it).

Here is the exact quotation from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America site:

"If primacy is defined as a form of power, then we encounter the question of whether in the Orthodox church there is a power superior to that of a bishop, i.e., a power over the bishop, and hence the church of which he is head. Theologically and ecclesiologically the answer must be an unconditional no: there is no power over the bishop and his church. In the canonical and historical life of the Church, however, such supreme power not only exists but is conceived as the foundation of the Church; it is the basis of its canonical system. According to Father Schmemann, this reflects the alienation of canonical tradition from ecclesiology and its reduction to canon law in the context of which the life of the Church came to be expressed in juridical terms.[36]"
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

As I understand it, Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis (at the Greek Orthodox site) also acknowledged that the Orthodox aren't sure what "primacy" even means. That is admitted, I believe, somewhere in this same article.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

That would seem to fit with the Orthodox idea that even "Ecumenical Councils" are not infallible until they are affirmed by "the whole Church"(i.e. those that are correct in their belief).
​

Additionally in regard to a Eucharistic understanding vs. one of universal jurisdiction he explains:

This concept of primacy, as has been said already, is rooted in the "eucharistic ecclesiology" which we believe to be the source of Orthodox canonical and liturgical tradition. As result of its distortion or, at least, "metamorphosis" there appeared another type of ecclesiology which we have termed "universal." It leads necessarily to the understanding and practice of primacy as "supreme power" and therefore, to anuniversal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form.​

Right. Again, they are rejecting the idea of a universal Church. Or in other words, the idea that there is a "whole Church", composed of "parts".​

I did find a thread from 2002 in an old forum which also mistakes Fr. Schmemann's thesis and even uses the phrase that he had to "work around" certain issues. I suggest you stop using Joe Gallegos and other cut and paste experts and start reading the entire documents for yourself. It is not giving you a good picture of what is going on. If you don't have time for that, then I suggest perhaps cutting back your time here and reading their works as an alternative.

Most of what I'm reading from Schmemann and Afanassieff is from the book "the Primacy of Peter", an Orthodox book I have been trying to slowly read and process in parts since I got it from the library (until it is due for return).. The quotes I've been giving from them are all from this book, not from any Catholic apologists. That doesn't mean, however, that I've worked through the whole of their essays yet or that I understand their ideas well. Nor am I intending to give all the ideas in a given essay. But I believe my quotations or paraphrases have been accurate.

For example, the Orthodox scholar Afanassieff does really say that the Orthodox have no systematic doctrine of Church government. Afanassieff further says that for Cyprian, the Bishop of Rome is the direct successor of Peter, while the other bishops are only heirs of Peter indirectly. And Afanassieff further says that for Cyprian Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church, and the principal Church from which priestly unity takes its source.

He also says that if the Church is a single body, then it must have a supreme Bishop as its head.

As far as reading the fathers themselves, I am doing my best. I find it hard to find many of the patristic texts online (and I have a lot of trouble reading, and especially with online texts), and I don't have the money to buy the Jurgens set right now (which I want somewhat), and even if I did I'm not sure I have ability to wade through the full texts. And if I did, I don't think I would be able to type out the full quotations for others online.

In short, I'm never going to be anything close to a historian.

Peace,

Pat

 

[isshinwhat]

Enjoy your studies.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It doesn't matter because the Church sided with Cyprian over Stephen, Irenaeus over Victor, etc. showing the Church did not have the understanding the the Pope is the universal head. Only Christ has that role.

 

[patricius79]

It doesn't matter because the Church sided with Cyprian over Stephen, Irenaeus over Victor, etc. showing the Church did not have the understanding the the Pope is the universal head. Only Christ has that role.

Hi ArmyMatt,

Thank you.

I don't know much.

Could you name any of the later fathers--like the post-Nicene fathers-- who say that those baptized by heretics must be re-baptized?

Also, do all the Orthodox churches re-baptize? Which ones do and which ones don't?

(I'm also trying to learn if all the Orthodox churches are in communion with each other. For example, is ROCOR in communion with all the other Orthoodox churches?)

As far as the Easter controversy, I don't know much about that. I know that Irenaeus said that all the world's churches must resort to the Bishop of Rome, because of Rome's preeminent authority.

The EO scholar Afanassieff--in commenting on this passage from Irenaeus--says that Rome's role in the pre-Nicene period played the role of "arbiter" and was the "conscience" of the Church when there were disputes in local churches.

But as I understand it, the Orthodox claim is that Rome's primacy was mainly because she was the capital of the empire.

However, I don't see how that fits with the "Eucharistic ecclesiology" idea, which means that priorities of witness--such as Rome had especially--are not due to legal rights (or, presumably, political factors), but due to grace.

Also, doesn't Alexander Schmemann say that it is nonsensical to say that the Church does not need a visible head because it has Christ as its invisible head? I thought I read that in Steve Ray's book "Upon This Rock", where Ray quoted a lengthy passage from Schmemann. I thought Schmemann says that this argument would logically lead to the rejection of local Bishops.

Of course Schmemann did not become Catholic (as far as I know). He acknowledged that the Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledge Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement.

But Schemann rejected the idea of a universal Church, and thus rejected the Papal claims.

Thank you,

Pat

 

[isshinwhat]

Doesn't Alexander Schmemann say that it is nonsensical to say that the Church does not need a visible head because it has Christ as its invisible head? I thought I read that in Steve Ray's book "Upon This Rock", where Ray quoted a lengthy passage from Schmemann. I thought Schmemann says that this argument would logically lead to the rejection of local Bishops.

No, he did not say that, he said that is what the Romans believe and it has been condemned as heretical by the Orthodox. I addressed that point with two passages from Fr. Schmemann in my prior post on this page.

 

[patricius79]

No, he did not say that, he said that is what the Romans believe and it has been condemned as heretical by the Orthodox. I addressed that point with two passages from Fr. Schmemann in my prior post on this page.

Hi Isshinwhat,

Thank you.

Here is what I'm referring to (page 151 of the Orthodox study, "The Primacy of Peter").

Alexander Schmemann writes:

"We do not need to go here into all details of this ecclesiology [of a universal Church]. The important point here is for us to see that in the light of this doctrine [of a universal Church] the need for and the reality of a universal head, i.e., the Bishop of Rome, can no longer be termed an exaggeration. It becomes not only acceptable but also necessary. If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head because Christ is her invisible head is theological nonsense. If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each local church, i.e., the bishop. Yet it is the basic assumption of a 'catholic' ecclesiology that the visible structure of the Church manifests and communicates its invisible nature. The invisible Christ is made present through the visible unity of the bishop and the people: the Head and the Body. To oppose the visible structure to the invisible Christ leads inescapably to the Protestant divorce between a visible and human Church which is contingent, relative and changing, and an invisible Church in heaven. We must simply admit that if the categories of organism and organic unity are to be applied primarily to the Church universal as the sum of all its component parts (i.e., local churches), then the one, supreme, and universal power as well as its bearer becomes a self-evident necessity, because this unique visible organism must have a unique visible head. Thus the efforts of Roman Catholic theologians to justify Roman primacy not by mere historical contingencies but by divine institution appear as logical. Within a universal ecclesiology, primacy is of necessity power and, by the same necessity, a divinely instituted power; we have all this in a consistent form in the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Church." (p. 151; emphases in the original)
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/116203/Father Alexander Schmemann on

 

[ArmyMatt]

patroclus

you say: Could you name any of the later fathers--like the post-Nicene fathers-- who say that those baptized by heretics must be re-baptized?

off the top of my head no, but that does not matter. the Pope had no authority over Cyrpian

you say: Also, do all the Orthodox churches re-baptize? Which ones do and which ones don't?

depends on how far away in error you are.

you say: I know that Irenaeus said that all the world's churches must resort to the Bishop of Rome, because of Rome's preeminent authority.

and he also told the Pope to back off the Quartodecimens

you say: The EO scholar Afanassieff--in commenting on this passage from Irenaeus--says that Rome's role in the pre-Nicene period played the role of "arbiter" and was the "conscience" of the Church when there were disputes in local churches.

which is how the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople functions now. but he still does not have authority over his brother bishops

you say: But as I understand it, the Orthodox claim is that Rome's primacy was mainly because she was the capital of the empire.
However, I don't see how that fits with the "Eucharistic ecclesiology" idea, which means that priorities of witness--such as Rome had especially--are not due to legal rights (or, presumably, political factors), but due to grace.

so what? the Councils and Church practice show otherwise. there is no unique grace that is in Rome, that does not exist in any other Church.

you say: Also, doesn't Alexander Schmemann say that it is nonsensical to say that the Church does not need a visible head because it has Christ as its invisible head? I thought I read that in Steve Ray's book "Upon This Rock", where Ray quoted a lengthy passage from Schmemann. I thought Schmemann says that this argument would logically lead to the rejection of local Bishops.
Of course Schmemann did not become Catholic (as far as I know). He acknowledged that the Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledge Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement.

yes but in what way? what exactly is this visible headship? and no, Schmemann died faithful to the Church.

 

[isshinwhat]

The full text can be found in Fr. Alexander's essay, "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology," which again I ask you to read to obtain context. Were you to read it, you would see (as I have pointed out twice already) that he is stating a Roman argument that "appears logical" if its faulty premise is accepted. He goes on to point out that it is a heretical belief condemned by the Orthodox:

The universal ecclesiology finds its fullest expression in Roman Catholic theology, crowned by the Vatican dogma of 1870. Here the only adequate expression of the Church as organism is the universal structure of the Church, its universal unity. The Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the Body of Christ. The Church is thus conceived in terms of whole and parts. Each community, each local church is but a part, a member of this universal organism; and it participates in the Church only through its belonging to the "whole." In the words of one of its best exponents, Roman theology seeks a definition of the Church in which "parts would receive within the whole, conceived really as a whole, the status of genuine parts."
​

Therefore everything he describes in the quote you provided is him giving the Roman opinion, which is why it sounds good to you. Fr. Schmemann goes on to say of the opinion you quoted:

Is this ecclesiology acceptable from the Orthodox point of view? The question may seem naive. The Orthodox Church has rejected as heretical the Roman claims and thus has implicitly condemned the ecclesiology which supports them.​

 

[prodromos]

The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head because Christ is her invisible head is theological nonsense. If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each local church, i.e., the bishop

Pat, we have consistently stated that the bishop is the visible head of the local Church. I have not personally seen the above used in Orthodox apologetics. Perhaps it had been common in Schmemann's time but since no one here has suggested such a thing it seems pointless for you to repeatedly raise it as an issue.

 

[isshinwhat]

Podromos, here is what Fr. Schmemann actually said of the theology he held:

What then, from the point of view which interests us in this essay, is the essence of this Orthodox ecclesiology? It is, above all, that it applies the categories of organism and organic unity to "the Church of God abiding…" in every place: to the local church, to the community led by a bishop and having, in communion with him, the fullness of the Church. Fr. Afanassieff terms it "eucharistic ecclesiology." And, indeed, it is rooted in the Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Church, an Act, which ever actualizes the Church as the Body of Christ.20 A similar view is expressed by Fr. George Florovsky. "The Sacraments," he writes, "constitute the Church…Only in them the Christian community transcends its human dimensions and becomes the Church."21Through the Eucharist we have the whole Christ and not a "part" of Him; and therefore the Church which is "actualized" in the Eucharist is not a "part" or "member" of a whole, but the Church of God in her wholeness. For it is precisely the function of the Eucharist to manifest the whole Church, her "catholicity." Where there is the Eucharist, there is the Church; and conversely, only where the whole Church is, (i.e., the people of God united in the Bishop, the Head, the Shepherd), there is the Eucharist. Such is the primitive ecclesiology, expressed in the tradition of the early Church and still recognizable in our canons and in the liturgical "rubrics," which to so many seem obscure and non-essential.22 There is no room here for the categories of the "parts" and of the "whole," because it is the very essence of the sacramental-hierarchical structure that in it a "part" not only "agrees" with but is identical to the whole, reveals it adequately in itself, and in one word is the whole. The local Church as a sacramental organism, as the Gift of God in Christ, is not part or member of a wider universal organism. She is the Church. Objectively, as the Body of Christ, the Church is always identical to herself in space and time. In time, because she is always the people of God gathered to proclaim the death of the Lord and to confess His resurrection. In space, because in each local Church the fullness of gifts is given, the whole Truth is announced, the whole Christ is present, who is "yesterday and today and forever the same." In her sacramental and hierarchical order the Church reveals and conveys to men the fullness of Christ into which they must grow (cf. Eph. 4:13).​

 

[patricius79]

patroclus

you say: Could you name any of the later fathers--like the post-Nicene fathers-- who say that those baptized by heretics must be re-baptized?

off the top of my head no, but that does not matter. the Pope had no authority over Cyrpian

So what is the evidence that the Church--in the subsequent decades and centuries to the debate about rebaptism--rejected Stephen's teaching that heretics should not be re-baptized?

Being ignorant, I asked about this issue at Catholic Answers, and they said that some of the first seven Ecumenical Councils affirmed Stephen's position.

Notice how heretics are received without being baptized again, but only after renouncing their heresy and being confirmed:

"Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians...and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God. Thereupon, they are first sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth, and ears; and when we seal them, we say, The Seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Second Ecumenical Council Canon 5)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=971248

you say: Also, do all the Orthodox churches re-baptize? Which ones do and which ones don't?

depends on how far away in error you are.

Could you please be more specific? And do all the Orthodox Church have the same policies in regard to re-baptizing heretics?

you say: I know that Irenaeus said that all the world's churches must resort to the Bishop of Rome, because of Rome's preeminent authority.

and he also told the Pope to back off the Quartodecimens

Sure, and St. Catherine of Sienna corrected the Pope too. There is nothing contrary to Catholic teaching about that, is there?

Apparently Irenaeus both believed that all the churches should agree with the Roman Succession, and that Popes can make mistakes, especially in matters of discipline. Is that a greater difficulty to understand than it is difficult to understand the Orthodox beliefs?

you say: But as I understand it, the Orthodox claim is that Rome's primacy was mainly because she was the capital of the empire.
However, I don't see how that fits with the "Eucharistic ecclesiology" idea, which means that priorities of witness--such as Rome had especially--are not due to legal rights (or, presumably, political factors), but due to grace.

so what? the Councils and Church practice show otherwise. there is no unique grace that is in Rome, that does not exist in any other Church.

But if Eucharistic ecclesiology is based on grace and not the law, then Rome's role as the center of ecumenical agreement--acknowledged unanimously by the fathers and councils according to Schmemann-- had to be a matter of grace, and not because she was the capitol of a legal Empire. Right?

you say: Also, doesn't Alexander Schmemann say that it is nonsensical to say that the Church does not need a visible head because it has Christ as its invisible head? I thought I read that in Steve Ray's book "Upon This Rock", where Ray quoted a lengthy passage from Schmemann. I thought Schmemann says that this argument would logically lead to the rejection of local Bishops.
Of course Schmemann did not become Catholic (as far as I know). He acknowledged that the Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledge Rome as the center of Ecumenical agreement.

yes but in what way? what exactly is this visible headship? and no, Schmemann died faithful to the Church.

One of the things I don't understand is why Eucharistic ecclesiology affirms the legal power of Bishops, if law is understood--in Eucharistic ecclesiology--as being opposed to grace.


Thank you,

Pat

 

[patricius79]

The full text can be found in Fr. Alexander's essay, "The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology," which again I ask you to read to obtain context. Were you to read it, you would see (as I have pointed out twice already) that he is stating a Roman argument that "appears logical" if its faulty premise is accepted. He goes on to point out that it is a heretical belief condemned by the Orthodox:

The universal ecclesiology finds its fullest expression in Roman Catholic theology, crowned by the Vatican dogma of 1870. Here the only adequate expression of the Church as organism is the universal structure of the Church, its universal unity. The Church is the sum of all local churches, which all together constitute the Body of Christ. The Church is thus conceived in terms of whole and parts. Each community, each local church is but a part, a member of this universal organism; and it participates in the Church only through its belonging to the "whole." In the words of one of its best exponents, Roman theology seeks a definition of the Church in which "parts would receive within the whole, conceived really as a whole, the status of genuine parts."
​

Therefore everything he describes in the quote you provided is him giving the Roman opinion, which is why it sounds good to you. Fr. Schmemann goes on to say of the opinion you quoted:

Is this ecclesiology acceptable from the Orthodox point of view? The question may seem naive. The Orthodox Church has rejected as heretical the Roman claims and thus has implicitly condemned the ecclesiology which supports them.​

Hi Ishinwhat,

thank you. I'm working on reading that essay.

Yes, Schmemann rejected the Papacy. He apparently says the Papacy is logical and necessary if the Church is understood as a universal organism.

But Schmemann rejects the idea of the Church is a universal organism. In other words--as I understand it--Schmemann is saying we shouldn't think in terms of a "universal" or "whole church", composed of "parts")

But I guess I don't understand why he would accept the legal power of the Bishop if "Eucharistic ecclesiology" is about grace rather than the law.

In other words, why not break down the legal or authoritative structure of the Church further, as do the Protestants?

In other words, if priests can offer the Eucharist which constitutes the fulness of the Church, then "Eucharistic ecclesiology" would logically mean that the Bishop has no power over the local parish, united to its priest.

Or am I just confused?

Thank you,

Pat

 

[prodromos]

Being ignorant, I asked about this issue at Catholic Answers, and they said that some of the first seven Ecumenical Councils affirmed Stephen's position

The examples given are those who had formerly been part of the Church but had fallen into heresy, so they had already received a trinitarian baptism before their apostasy.