www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils

Then you shall be disappointed since this is one of the things which has no Orthodox conciliar definition. The Church has never had to define itself. It has simply always lived its own mysterious reality.

It is said, by the Orthodox, that the Devil has fought his way through the articles of the Creed, and now he is turning his attention to the phrase "In one holy catholic and apostolic church."

If this is so, then the time may be close when the Church will have to convene in an Ecumenical Council and discuss the matter, at least sufficiently to rebut any modern heresy. But ultimately the great Mystery of the Church remains undefinable. The Church is a theandric entity; it cannot be fully comprehended by human thought.

My Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, has already stated emphatically via Archbishop Hilarion that it will never accept the 2007 Ravenna Statement.

The Serbian Orthodox Church has said likewise.

The Bulgarian Orthodox Church declined to attend either Ravenna or Cyprus, stating in synod that the dialogue was a waste of time.

To my knowledge the other Orthodox Churches have said nothing.

I think, but I may be wrong, that we are seeing a major shift among the Orthodox. To conduct the "Dialogue of Love" as Pope John Paul II called it, breaking down centuries of suspicion and lack of contact, the Orthodox bishops were quite happy to leave this in the hands of theologians and bishops with an interest in the ecumenical dialogue. Quite often the Synods of the Churches had little idea of the discussions; the Church of Greece spoke about this before Cyprus.

But now we are entering the "Dialogue of Truth" which Pope John Paul said would be much more demanding. The Orthodox bishops will now play a more active role, no longer content to leave matters in the hands of the small circle of ecumenecal enthusiasts but themselves taking a hands-on approach.

This will slow the dialogue down greatly, but it will enhance it with an authenticity and authority which it has not previously known.

Thank you, Stuart, for the opportunity for us to engage in our own dialogue on the forum.

I went on to explain that what has happened, thanks to Ravenna and to Cyprus, is that the bishops will now exercise an episcopal oversight over the dialogue and no longer leave it simply to the small circle of ecumenical enthusiasts who attend the symposia year after year.

But you have no opinion whatsoever concerning the findings of those sessions. Worse still, both you and the Orthodox bishops refuse to recognize that you have, in effect, won every major point contested by Orthodoxy over the last 1000 years.

But, while we're still here--you are quite wrong about Orthodox ecclesiology. It was addressed repeatedly in the Great Councils. The main reason the Orthodox like to pretend the Orthodox Church has never spoken on the subject is it would require the Orthodox to acknowledge the canonical irregularity of their current situation. It may very well take another Great Council to rectify the situation, but as no Roman Emperor sits on the throne of the Caesars in Constantinople, who will call it? No God-loving Tsar sits on the throne of Third Rome--though I suppose Vladimir Putin could do a reasonable impersonation if he so desired. Still, if he did, who would heed his call?

[quote=MarkosC][quote=militantsparrow]Wow. There is a lot to take in here. So in regards to my original post, it seems as though there is no clear understanding on what the Eastern Catholics believe?

Maybe officially they have to believe everything a Latin Rite Catholic has to believe, but un-officially they're more like the ancient church (per the Orthodox). That is, the papacy was the first among equals and a rock, which unified the church, but not infallible and not supreme.
[/quote]

MS,

I haven't wanted to touch this thread, but I wouldn't take away that impression.

I'd say that Catholicism is not a confessional faith like many forms of Protestantism. There is no Catholic confession, 39 articles, or the like which clearly and completely outlines everything the Catholic Church believes in. Yes there is the Nicene creed, yes there is the CCC, but in the case of the latter there's tremendous depth and nuance which is impossible to capture even in a book as big as that one.

I think one of the areas which there's actually a whole world of facts, context, and subtleties is what Papal Infallibility actually means. Stuart has discussed some of this, I've mentioned as little of it as I understand in my other post to you, and my impression is that there are whole worlds of academic literature on the subject (frequently in other languages). However, none of this is commonly available nor is it discussed in polemics.

Finally, my opinion on your original question: it might be relevant if you believed a) that there is a formula to determine what council is ecumenical, or that someone in Rome has put out an authoritative list and b) that one can reject dogmas put out by non-ecumenical councils to one's heart's content but must believe in everything ecumenical councils say.

I think both a) and b) are problematic -maybe to the point of being untrue. Beyond this, I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. [/quote]

Thank you, Markos. I don't share a or b. I really was just curious as to why there seemed to be differences in the understanding between Rome and the Eastern Rites. And if it's really a difference and not just some rumor that is not true.

The Orthodox Churches have been preparing for what could be the Eighth Ecumenical Council since the mid 1970s.


Here is Father (Saint) Justin Popovich's assessment of the proposed Council and its agenda

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/stjustin_council.aspx


Here is a North American article discusing the agenda

http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1977reaction.html

Dear Stuart,

I would like to hear your assessment of what the Councils accepted as normative ecclesiology.

I would also be interested as to why you see this ecclesiology as "Orthodox" ecclesiology since the Councils and their teachings belong as much to the Church of Rome as to the Orthodox.

Did the Roman Catholic Church at some time reject the teaching of the Councils? create a new ecclesiology?

Orthodox Ecclesiology in Outline

Western Christians often speak of the Orthodox Churches, rather than the Orthodox Church. From the Orthodox perspective, the Church is one, even though She is manifested in many places. Orthodox ecclesiology operates with a plurality in unity and a unity in plurality. For Orthodoxy there is no ‘either / or’ between the one and the many. No attempt is made, or should be made, to subordinate the many to the one (the Roman Catholic model), nor the one to the many (the Protestant model). It is both canonically and theologically correct to speak of the Church and the churches, and vice versa. This is impossible for Roman Catholic ecclesiology because of the double papal claim for universal jurisdiction and infallibility. The same must be said of the Protestant ecclesiologies, which connect the notion of the Church with denominationalism, and which make a distinction between the one and the many in terms of the invisible and the visible Church. From an Orthodox perspective, the Church is both catholic and local, invisible and visible, one and many. To explain what lies behind this Orthodox ecclesiological unity in multiplicity, one has to deal with the Orthodox understanding of the nature of the Church.
The Church of the Triune God

The nature of the Church is to be understood as the Church of the Triune God. The Holy Trinity is the ultimate basis and source of the Church’s existence and, as such, the Church is in the image and likeness of God. This being in the image of the blessed Trinity constitutes the mode of the Church’s existence, which, in fact, reveals her nature. Being in God, the Church reflects on earth God’s unity in Trinity. What is natural to God is given to the Church by grace.

The grace of the Trinity is the starting point for understanding the nature of the Church, and especially for her unity in multiplicity, as the Holy Spirit shares one life and one being. The three distinct and unique Persons are one in life and in nature. Similarly, the Church exhibits a parallel multiplicity of persons in unity of life and being. The difference between God and the Church is that, in the former, multiplicity in unity is the truth, whereas in the latter, this is only a participation in the truth. In patristic language the former is ousia, while the latter is metousia. The unity of the three divine Persons in life and being is, therefore, the prototype of the unity of the Church’s persons in life and in being. As Christ Himself says in His prayer for the Church: "even as Thou O Father are in me and me in Thee, so they may be one, that the world may believe that Thou has sent me." The mark of unity is collegiality and love, and not subordination. Orthodox Triadology, based on the grace of the Trinity, supplies the basic ontological categories for Orthodox ecclesiology. The Church is an eikon of the Holy Trinity, a participation in the grace of God.
The Church of Christ

How does the Church participate in God’s mystery and grace? How is metousia Theou ("participation in the essence of God") achieved? How does the Church become an eikon of the Holy Trinity? The answer, in its simplest form, is contained in the phrase "in and through Christ." Christ has established the bond between the image of the Triune God, and that which is made after the image, namely, the Church, mankind. In Christ we have both the eikon and the kat eikon ("that which is according to the image"). Hence, we must say that the Church is the Church of the Triune God as the Church of Christ. The link between the Holy Trinity and Christology, that is, between theology and economy, demands a similar link in ecclesiology. The Church is in the image of the Triune God, and participates in the grace of the Trinity inasmuch as She is in Christ and partakes of His grace. The unity of persons in life and being cannot be achieved apart from this economy of Christ, and we here encounter what the New Testament calls the "Body of Christ."

Christ is the Head of the Church and She is His Body. It is from this Christological angle that we better understand the multiplicity in unity which exists in the Church. This angle of the Body of Christ is normally connected with the divine Eucharist, because it is in the Eucharist that the Body is revealed and realized. In the divine Eucharist we have the whole Christ, the Head, and the Body, the Church. But the Eucharist is celebrated in many places and among many different groups of people. Does this then mean that there are many bodies of Christ? This is not the case because there is one Head, and one eucharistic Body (His very body which He took up in the Incarnation) into which all the groups of people in the different places are incorporated. It is the Lord Himself who is manifested in many places, as He gives His one Body to all, so that in partaking of it they may all become one with Him and with one another. "In that there is one bread, the many are one Body, for we all partake of the one bread." The many places and the many groups of people where the eucharistic Body of Christ is revealed do not constitute an obstacle to its unity. Indeed, to partake of this Body in one place is to be united with Him who is not bound by place and, therefore, to be mystically (or "mysterially," or "sacramentally") united with all. This is how St. Athanasius explains the prayer of our Lord that the apostles may be one. "... because I am Thy Word, and I am also in them because of the Body, and because of Thee the salvation of men is perfected in Me, therefore I ask that they may also become one, according to the Body that is Me and according to its perfection, that they, too, may become perfect having oneness with it, and having become one in it; that, as if all were carried by me, all may be one body and one spirit and may grow up into a perfect man." And St. Athanasius concludes: "For we all, partaking of the same, become one Body, having the one Lord in ourselves." What is given in one specific place is something which also transcends it, because of its particular perfection, that is, its being Christ’s risen body. The different eucharistic localities, with the eucharistic president (the bishop), the clergy, and the participants (the people) constitute or reveal the whole Church. It is a local church, and yet she reveals the catholic mystery of one Church. The one Church of Christ is equally and fully in all these localities because of the one, perfect Eucharist, the one Lord, and the one Body. This equality of the presence of the one Christ in the local churches is the ground for what is often called "Orthodox eucharistic ecclesiology" and its logical implication, the autocephaly of the local bishops and churches, which is rooted in, and springs from, the equal share in the fullness of the great eucharistic sacrament. Autocephaly is not autonomy. It must be understood in terms of the equality of bishops, and the participation of all in the one Body of Christ. It is their equality in grace which binds them to one another.

In Orthodox ecclesiology there is no difference in status between the bishop of a small place in Cappadocia and the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. As eucharistic churches established upon the foundation of Jesus Christ, they are equal. This order of equality and its corollary, communion in the one Body of Christ, pertains to the very nature of the Church, that is, it constitutes the ecclesiastical ontology. It is this order which gives rise to the hierarchical, or ecumenical, order (or order of seniority, "ta presbeia") which pertains to the historical structure of the Church. But there is no antinomy between the order of equality and the order of seniority in Orthodox ecclesiology. Catholicity (the equality of the local churches as participants in the grace of Christ and the Holy Trinity) and ecumenicity (the order of seniority among the bishops as participants in the mission of the Church to the world in history) are not antipodes. From the Orthodox perspective, it is the development of such antipodes which have resulted in the historical divisions within Christendom. The Roman Catholic claim of universality and primacy on the one had, and the Protestant claims of individual or local autonomy on the other, are, in fact, contradictions between catholicity and ecumenicity, since they claim that the integrity of the local churches of God is not guaranteed by their participation in the one grace of Christ and the Trinity, but by their acceptance of the one local church (the church of Rome) and by one local bishop (the pope of Rome) as their absolute head. The Protestants, on the other hand, in their attempt to reclaim catholicity on the basis of the free grace of God in Christ, have ignored the historical order established by the catholic churches, and, as a result, have often confused the autocephaly of the local church with autonomy. The strength of the Orthodox vis-a-vis the other Christians is their fidelity to the mystery of the catholic Church, the Body of Christ, as it has been established and manifest in history. The Orthodox alone have kept in their full integrity both the catholic mystery of the Eucharist, and in the ecumenical order of seniority among the catholic Churches (ta presbeia) which springs out of the mystery of the Eucharist. This is why they claim to be the one Church of God, founded upon Christ, and keeping the historic canonical order of seniority which constitutes the Church’s response to the challenges of history. The Orthodox believe that there is always room for development in the Church’s historic response to the world, provided that it is consistent with the established canonical tradition, but they remain absolutely adamant on the essential belief of catholicity and unity.
The Church of the Trinity and the Church of Christ

Some theologians speak of Orthodox ecclesiology in terms of two models: the triadological and the Christological. In fact, there are not two models, but one. The Church is both the Church of the Holy Trinity and the Church of Christ. It is true that only in Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity incarnate. Yet, the entire fullness of the Godhead dwells in the body of the incarnate Son, as in a temple. This is clear from the teachings of the New Testament and from the teachings of the Fathers of the Church. Christology is inseparable from Triadology. No adequate doctrine of the Son can be developed without the Father. At the same time, the gift of the incarnate Son to humanity, both His incarnate presence and our incorporation into His Body, are unthinkable without the Holy Spirit. It is true that Orthodox theologians have made different attempts to interpret this interpenetration of the Trinitarian and the Christological dimensions of Orthodox ecclesiology. Some, for instance, would see the work of Christ as referring to the unity of nature, and the work of the Spirit to the diversity of persons, whilst both Christ and the Spirit bring the whole of humanity, nature and persons under the monarchy of the Father. Others, however, would point to the biblical pattern of the revelation of the Trinity in salvation history and would see the beginning of the Church in the Father. They would also see in creation the establishment or revelation of the Church in history, in the Incarnation of the Son, and, finally, in the growth and perfection of the Church in the economy of the Holy Spirit, which reaches its end in the final resurrection. This strictly biblical pattern seem to be closer to the ethos of the liturgical traditions of Orthodoxy, but the other model (which is more dogmatic and ontological) also seems to have its basis in the Church’s mind concerning Christ the Lord. The triadological and Christological dimensions cannot be divorced in Orthodox ecclesiology, because the Church is the Church of the Holy Trinity insofar as She is the Church of Christ, and vice versa.
The Church of the Fathers

The Orthodox Church is also the church of the Fathers. By Fathers, we mean the bishops, and those who preside over the Eucharist. That is, those who serve the mystery of the body of Christ to the local churches. Not everybody serves the mystery of Christ to the local church—not everybody celebrates the divine Eucharist, or performs the Christian sacraments of initiation and growth. In the first instance, it is the bishop who does this. The presbyters are his assistants, who participate in his episcopal function through the celebration of the Eucharist and through their ministry to the congregation of the local church. The bishop is the specific focus of the life and existence of the local church. He is the eikon of Christ for the whole diocese, not in a merely symbolic way, but in a real and living way. As Saint Ignatius said: "where the bishop is, there is Christ." This patristic order of the local church was instituted by the Lord Himself in the establishment of the holy apostolate, and was continued in the successors of the apostles, the bishops, and the presbyters. Whatever the questions about the historical origins and the precise way in which this order evolved, it is clear that its root is to be found in Christ and in the apostles. In the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, the patristic dimension of the Church is a sine qua non. Hence, we must speak of the Church as the church of the Fathers, as the Church was, indeed, founded upon the foundation of the apostles, Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. But it is in the Fathers that we have the maintenance of the apostolic heritage, as the Fathers maintain the integrity of the Church by keeping the apostolic Faith and tradition. The dogmas of the Fathers, whether their accredited writings, or in their local and ecumenical synodal decisions, have no other intention but to keep the truth which the Lord gave and the apostles preached. Orthodox dogmatics and doctrine are thoroughly apostolic and patristic. They are not abstract ideas divorced from the persons of the Fathers, the apostles and Christ. Doctrine is the expression of this unbroken line of existence which belongs to the very being of the Church. The guarantee of this unbroken line of holy tradition and existence is none other than the Holy Paraclete given by Christ Himself to His Church, the Spirit of Life who grafts us all on to the one Body of Christ and makes us reside in the one Truth.

In the Orthodox tradition all bishops and presbyters, and even deacons, are called Fathers, because they serve the mystery of Christ and, thus, give birth and food to all Christian existence. In other words, there is a three-fold patristic order in the local churches. As all local churches are equal, because they receive the same grace, so the three-fold local patristic dimensions is equal from one locality to another. The other titles, which relate to the order of seniority, and which normally imply certain prerogatives for the persons who bear them, are, in fact, secondary elements which relate to the Church’s response to the world. Such prerogatives exist not only among bishops but also among presbyters and deacons. The supreme prerogative in the Orthodox tradition is that of the ecumenical patriarch, which was synodically and canonically given to the bishop of Constantinople, New Rome. Then the Orthodox observed a whole order of seniority which corresponded to the historic expansion of the Church in history. After the ecumenical patriarch the ancient patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and then the modern patriarchates, such as the Russian and the Serbian, as well as all the autocephalous churches, such as the Church of Cyprus and the Church of Greece, followed. Within these boundaries there has been a further extension to the order of seniority. Generally speaking, the order of ta presbeia in the Orthodox Church, which finds it ultimate expression in the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, reveals a harmony which has a natural evolution inasmuch as it follows the chronological pattern of the Church’s history. A closer look, however, indicates that the basis for this pattern is not merely historical but also spiritual. It is, in fact, the sacred history, not divorced from the secular, that has imposed its own natural pattern of order. Had it been merely an external historic principle which determined the ‘historic’ evolution of the Orthodox order of seniority, this order would not have outlasted the external changes. The order of seniority in the Orthodox Church has been kept, in spite of external changes in history, because the Church in history is like a family which grows and gives birth to new children. This is a holy family where the children do not reject the parents, the daughters do not forget the mothers, and the mothers do not neglect the distinctive charisms of their daughters. We may say then that the patristic dimension of the Church, especially in its ecumenical structure, rests on the fact that the Church is like a family which grows in history from generation to generation, and from one people to another. The Fathers who have fallen asleep are, in fact, sleepless guardians of the Church. The Church in heaven is united with the Church on earth, and that which our Fathers have established on earth is binding for us because they are still alive. To keep company with them is to keep their work in our heart and practice. It is also to keep the historic perspective which is governed by the sacred history, and is rooted in the service or diakonia of the great mystery of the Body of Christ, the mystery of the divine eikon of the Holy Trinity reflected and realized in the life of mankind. The acceptance of the historic order of seniority, established by the Fathers of the catholic Church, is the way in which Orthodox Christians make sure that merely external historic considerations do not determine the Church’s response to history. The Church follows her Fathers who are not dead, but living, and who are praying for us and celebrating with us until the final consummation and renewal of all history.
The Church of the Saints or Those Who are Called To Be Saints

In the Orthodox perspective of the Church there is no separation between the clergy and the laity. The clergy serves the laity, and both participate and grow in the fullness of Christ’s Body. The apostolic patristic order of ministry was established for the people so that all the people of God may receive the new gift, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. There are many ways in which this relationship between clergy and people in the one body of Christ is realized and revealed in the Orthodox Church. Both the liturgy and the offices have distinctive parts for the clergy and the laity, but this also is the case in the dimension of the Church’s witness, teaching, and general mission to the world. The monastic order, with its single devotion to prayer and to Christian perfection, is one of the most eloquent links between the manifestation of this inner unity of clergy and the people in the Body of Christ. There are also other orders, such as the confessors and martyrs, or those who spend their lives serving the needs of the poor and the sick. The Orthodox Church, as the Church of the saints, is, in fact, the Church of the people of God. Here there is no tension between the shepherds and the flock. Those who minister, and those who are ministered to, pursue the same aim: participation in the grace of Christ and the Holy Trinity. The call to holiness binds them all into one Church. Whatever one’s position in the Church on earth—clerical, ascetical, or lay—it is the one Body of Christ and the one grace of the Holy Trinity that remain the central focus. Each person is appreciated fully as a person in his relation to this one Body and to the one common life and witness. Everyone is called to be a saint and, as such, to serve the mystery of Christ. Therefore, everyone, whatever his place or capacity, will be equally asked to give an account of his response to this calling on the day of judgment. Hence, all Orthodox Christians pray together for "Christian ends to their lives, and a good apology before the judgment seat of Christ." The Church is holy, or called to be holy, and this is an essential characteristic of Orthodox ecclesiology.
Conclusion

What then is the Church in the Orthodox perspective? She is the Church of the Triune God, the Church of Christ, the Church of the Fathers, the Church of the saints, and the Church of the people of God. She is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. Perhaps the best and clearest eikon of this manifold perspective of the Church is to be seen in the seal of the holy prosphora. Here we have the Church in focus in the personal, the historical, the theological, and the anthropological dimensions. Here we have unity, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity. Here we have the celebration of the whole mystery of the Church.

In summary, Orthodox ecclesiology is holistic and does not tolerate any arbitrary division between the one and the many. She is not tied to external uniformity or to pluriformity, but she is unity in multiplicity. As such, She asks all divided Christians who have tasted the power of God’s goodness and grace to unite with Her, because She does not seek Her own glory, but the glory of the Lord and His saints as it has been and is still being communicated to us in history, that the world may be saved and renewed.

From the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 26-3, 1981. Emphases mine.

Alexandr

I believe that the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Orthodox Teacher, are a propos:

Saint Justin Popovich:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and Papal ecclesiology."

Dear Alexandr,

This is definitely an article to keep in the archives. Thanks.

The problem with the concept of Sobornost is its lack of balance. You cannot have conciliarity without primacy, just as you cannot have primacy without conciliarity. The need for dynamic tension is expressed perfectly in Canon of the Holy Apostles No. 34, which is in fact the true basis for all ecclesiology in the Church, both East and West, and therefore the one true foundation for reconciliation and unity.

The balance you desire between primacy and conciliarity, the need for dynamic tension, has been supplanted in the Catholic Church by the institution of the papacy....

The Dogmatic Constitution of Vatican I states:

"8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy,governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment.

"The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon.

"And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff."

Dear Stuart,

I think that there has never been a balance of conciliar and papal authority in undivided Christendom. There is not a single reference to a papacy in any Ecumenical Council. There is not a single canon from a Council regarding any concept of papacy, nor its definition nor the extent of its powers.

It is to the canons that we must turn when seeking the truth of the Church's view of its own organisation and structure. These things were encapsulated by the canons. They reflect the Church's self-understanding and reality.


"There can be no compromise whatsoever" on papal primacy, Bishop Hilarion said in a May 28 interview with Russia's Interfax newsagency.

He added that "the aim of the theological dialogue is not at all to reach a compromise. For us, it is rather to identify the church's original view of primacy."


And a further response from the Orthodox Church of Russia:

Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican":

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept. This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has jurisdiction over any other."

From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

The ecclesiology of the Western Church is just as defective as that of the Eastern Church, albeit in the opposite direction. This is the inevitable result of their separation, for the two need each other, and neither is complete without the other.

There is nothing in the Councils nor in the works of the Holy Fathers which sanctions or even points towards a proliferation of national "autocephalous" Churches. Neither is there anything that points towards a single, pyramidal "universal" institutional structure with a single bishop at the apex.

The Councils and the Fathers did establish a taxis of Churches, in which all local Churches, all bishops, were equal in grace and dignity, but there was certainly a hierarchy among them, with local Churches deferring to metropolitan provinces, most of which were the under the pastoral care of a patriarchal see (the few exceptions were dioceses that were overseen directly by a patriarchate, bypassing the metropolitan province; ironically, this is the original meaning of "autocephalous").

At the highest level of the Church, five patriarchal sees were likewise co-equal in grace and dignity, but again, there was a taxis among them, a "priority" that is established in the canons of Constantinople and Chalcedon: Rome is the first Church, on account of its wealth, its position at the heart of the Empire, and its double Apostolic foundation. Constantinople is second, because it is "New Rome". Then come Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in a precise order.

While no patriarch is greater than any other (a reality stressed by Patriarch Gregorios III Laham), there is precedence, and in the ancient world, a primacy of honor had a specific meaning, and conveyed an authority completely independent of the legal concept of jurisdiction. In an honor-based society, people deferred to those with greater auctoritas, even if they themselves had greater or equal potestas.

In the ancient Church, the Bishop of Rome had no juridical power over any other Church, but the auctoritas of his See was such that all sought the support of Rome in any doctrinal dispute, and the objections of Rome usually created an insurmountable obstacle to the adoption of any new doctrinal expression. Rome also had ultimate appellate jurisdiction in ecclesiastical disputes (Council of Sardica, 342), whence comes the true meaning of the saying, "No one may judge the Roman See": Rome was the court of final appeal, the end of the line, take it or leave it--it had nothing to do with infallibility or supremacy.

You also need to recognize that within this structure there was considerable latitude for different forms of internal organization and governance. The Church of Alexandria, for instance, not only had a Pope, but a Pope who was, for many centuries, far more "papal" than the Pope of Rome. From the time of St. Clement of Alexandria (at least), the Archbishops of Alexandria appointed directly all the suffragan bishops of Egypt, even up into Abyssinia. The degree of centralization in the Alexandrine Church matched or exceeded anything considered by Innocent III, Gregory VII or Boniface VIII--and is, in practice, more complete than that exercised by the Pope today. So, within one particular Church, "papalism" is a heritage of Orthodoxy. In the West, there was also much closer control exercised over the local bishops by the Patriarch of the West, at least since the time of Pope Gregory the Great (St. Gregory the Dialogist to you), who, through the imposition of the pallium symbolically marked the subordination of the local Churches to the Church of Rome.

The problem is, thanks to the loss of Egypt and the Near East in the 7th century, the "Orthodox Church" today refers expressly to a Church of a single Tradition, the Byzantine-Constantinopolitan Tradition. It has, as I have noted, a great deal of difficulty accepting the legitimacy of anything that diverges from that Tradition, even if equally venerable, equally Apostolic. This kind of theological and ecclesiological provincialism (a provincialism fully matched by the medieval Church of Rome) was a useful survival mechanism when Byzantium was under siege, and later, when the Great Church was in Ottoman captivity, but provincialism is less than helpful in a modern world marked by open borders and global communications. Time to reclaim the cosmopolitanism that marked Orthodoxy in its early years.

That means, among other things, not drinking your own bathwater. Do not blindly accept your own polemics and propaganda at face value. The Russian soborniki of the 19th-20th centuries had a particular agenda in mind, and to further it, they developed a narrative of Orthodox Church history that is, at best, carefully sculpted to provide a foundation for sobornicity. It studiously ignores the primatial role played by the Ecumenical Patriarch right down to the fifteenth century, a role recognized in Russian Church chronicles and canons of the time. It ignores the deference paid by the Church of Kyiv, and later the Church of Moscow, to the Great Church of Constantinople, which also appointed the Metropolitan Archbishop of the Rus down to the fifteenth century. It ignores Constantinople's opposition to the establishment of other autocephalous metropolitan and patriarchal Churches (specifically, that of Bulgaria in the 9th-10th centuries), until it was too feeble to oppose them (which is how Moscow became, first, autocephalous, and second, a patriarchate). And finally, it ignored the roots of modern Orthodox autocephalism in secular nationalism, to say nothing of the unilateral manner in which most of the modern autocephalous Churches were erected.

In short, there is nothing canonical or even Traditional about the current Orthodox ecclesiology, which is a patchwork of compromises, accommodations and overlapping jurisdictions that can barely control the centrifugal forces pulling the Orthodox communion apart at the seams and severely compromising its ability to propagate the faith. This is recognized even by the leading Orthodox theologians. Whistle past the graveyard if you will, but don't pretend that you're just hunky-dory.

That said, the ecclesiology of the Catholic communion is just as bad or worse, except 180 degrees out of phase. Here, a rigid overcentralization has resulted in a ponderous, top-heavy structure that has infantilized local bishops by stripping them of authority over even mundane administrative matters (only Rome can laicize a priest?!!??), which is causing the entire edifice to crumble under its own weight.

Ultimately, Rome and the Orthodox Church need each other, because each complements the other. Rome needs real conciliarity, not the faux conciliarity of toothless "episcopal councils"; Orthodoxy need a real, functioning primacy, albeit not of the sort Rome now exercises.

In all of this, the Orthodox ought to recognize the important role of the Eastern Catholics. We humble uniates, in our struggle to become "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" are the laboratory by which the balance of primacy and conciliarity can be reestablished. And, as I said, the Orthodox should be helping us at every turn, if they are at all serious about the driving necessity of Christian unity--which, I fear, many are not.

MS,

I'm not as learned as Father Ambrose, Stuart, or a number of people here. But I'll comment - what I say are probably ill-founded assertions, but hopefully they'll be of some help.

Even in "Late Antiquity" - when the Churches of Rome, Constantiople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were united in faith and (at least formally) into one political and cultural entity - scholars identify various "schools" of Christianity based on local practice and thinking. Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, and North Africa are some of the major ones (St. Augustine himself might even be considered his own school). They certainly can influence each other, but there are distinct things about each. Though the era was rife with schism and theological contention, this is not necessarily a bad thing - at its best, these are ways different people express the

Since the end of "late antiquity" - the point when the Roman Empire lost Old Rome, as well as the Levant and Egypt and when there ceases to be a culturally united Mediterrean - things have continued to go on seperate tracks.

Focusing just on the Latin Church, you have the reconstitution of West European Christendom in the "early middle ages", the rise and fall of several religious revivals, the "scholastic" thinkers, the Renaissance, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, as well as the forces of the ostensible "Enlightenment", or monarchism/state churchism. In the past 200 years in particular, it had to face Gallicanism, Modernism as defined by Pope St. Pius X, and Integrism. A consensus view of "what is Catholicism" in the late 1800s/early 1900s (what the church is, what its theology is, and what its liturgical services are and how they should be done) would reflect all these trends. This is often considered (inaccurately) by some to be "traditional Roman Catholicism".

[I'd also add, as an aside, the Latin Church - as well as all the other Churches - have since the 1960s faced a particularly popular and destructive form of secularization which has led to widespread indifference to religion and, even worse, which views the life of the Church in fundamentally secular ways. But that's not really relevant here]

None of the above trends had anywhere near the same effect on the Byzantine churches as they did with Rome (I don't know anything really about the non-Byzantine Churches). That is, they followed a different historical trajectoty and have local theologies and the like which are, at the very least, often expressed differently than Rome. However, those Byzantine Churches that returned to union with Rome have had to adopt - to some degree, and sometimes not willingly - some of the consensus positions of the 1800s/1900s "consensus view" of Catholicism.

Recent trends - attempts in the past 100 years or so to find a more "patristic" version of Latin Catholicism, as well as Eastern Catholic reassertion of their patrimony - have made things somewhat easier in the past 50 years or so.





What I described is very rough (and as with any generalization of this length, full of problems), but I think it captures the fundamental problem: the Latin Church evolved in a certain way until the early 1900s, and many of the results of this are neither reflective of nor accommodating to the nature of the Byzantine Churches. This I think is why there are differences in understanding between Rome and the Eastern Churches in union with it.

Editorial: despite the difficulties, I don't truly believe that -when properly understood - Rome has added anything artificial to the life of the Church (i.e. gone to heresy).

Markos