www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West apostol;ic succession & the eucharist

I've been reading an interesting booklet by Eparch Basil Losten of Stamford entitled, Holy Things For The Holy on the Eucharist in the Ukrainian Catholic Church. I came across a citation from St. Ignatius of Antioch, which I am posting here from an online source:

"But avoid divisions, as being the beginning of evils. Do ye all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ doth the Father; and follow the presbyters as the apostles; and have respect unto the deacons as unto the commandment of God. Let no one, apart from the bishop, do any of the things that appertain unto the church. Let that eucharist alone be considered valid which is celebrated in the presence of the bishop, or of him to whom he shall have entrusted it."
[i]Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans, 8:1 http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/St.Pachomius/Greek/ignatius.smyrnaeans.html

Please forgive me if this causes any contention, for that is not my purpose, but I am curious as to the application of this view for an outside observer. Since the East and West consider the other to be in "schism" or "out of communion" with one another then does the other lack a valid Eucharist? How about the Oriental Orthodox?
Given the number of times this has occurred in history, did the "other" lack a valid Eucharist for a period of time? Quite confusing...

Pax Christi,
John

The papal legates came unto Constantinople and laid an excommunication upon said patriarch. He in turn excommunicated the pope. This did not include a mutual de-bishopization. The bishops continued to bishopize in their respective dioceses. Hence, the orders are valid. I don't see the problem.

And, yea verily, this reader wisheth wholeheartedly, that the texts of the ancren time be verily rendered into the tongue that pertaineth amongst us. Scriptors, hie thee hence and doeth what thou canst and render the incunabula coherent. Oy veh.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

AMEN!

JOY!

True, although Humbertus was without authority to do so, given that the pope had died. His haughty gesture was invalid.

Quote

He in turn excommunicated the pope.

I may be wrong, but I believe the Patriarch only excommunicated Humbertus and his staff. The excommunication of the pope was made later by synodical decree, invalid though it was.

Quote

This did not include a mutual de-bishopization. The bishops continued to bishopize in their respective dioceses. Hence, the orders are valid. I don't see the problem.

It's more a matter of curiosity then a problem. The RCC and EOC cannot seem to reach an agreement on the validity of their sacraments. While the RCC (logically one presumes the ECCs as well) had no trouble recognizing those of the EOC this doesn't seem to be the same in reverse. If we cannot reach agreement on the validity of the sacrament of baptism, then it would seem the Eucharist would be called into question as well. St. Ignatius of Antioch's words would seem to lend credit to such questioning.

Quote

And, yea verily, this reader wisheth wholeheartedly, that the texts of the ancren time be verily rendered into the tongue that pertaineth amongst us. Scriptors, hie thee hence and doeth what thou canst and render the incunabula coherent. Oy veh.

Ha! I cannot agree with you more, though alas the internet has not attracted a large collection of translations of the Fathers' works into modern English. The one I quote from is an Orthodox site, but the RCC one isn't much better on the language.

Pax Christi,
John

<<Since the East and West consider the other to be in "schism" or "out of communion" with one another then does the other lack a valid Eucharist? How about the Oriental Orthodox?
Given the number of times this has occurred in history, did the "other" lack a valid Eucharist for a period of time? Quite confusing...>>

The Orthodox Church really has no opinion on mysteries and other rites of non-Orthodox Christians. She is not called to have one; that's God's problem, not hers.

It becomes an issue ONLY when non-Orthodox seek to be reconciled with Orthodoxy.

At that point, it's a pastoral issue. The cut-and-dried dichotomy of, "If it's not A, then it has to be B," is not a pastoral approach. Such dialectic never is when you're talking about real people.

Of course, there are certain people called "Orthodox Fundamentalists"--the ultra-traditionalists--who use that very approach. But that approach is itself un-Orthodox.

I don't believe that the power of the Eucharist to unite ever yielded to the power of man to divide.

Schisms are the work of the world and brought into the Church like so much dust on our feet.

Yet it is a matter of disagreement in ecumenical discussions. We no more wish to "reconcile" ourselves to Eastern Orthodoxy than Eastern Orthodox desire to "submit" to Roman Catholicism. Yet we do hope and pray for renewed communion. For an outsider it probably is mystifying that one's sacraments could be invalid one moment and poof! valid in the next. Hence why I asked the question.

Quote

Of course, there are certain people called "Orthodox Fundamentalists"--the ultra-traditionalists--who use that very approach. But that approach is itself un-Orthodox.

Oh we have our own bunch of fun-loving fundies too.

Pax Christi,
John

The Eucharist itself, no. Our attempts to understand this, yes. We fight over the meaning of the Eucharist, what occurs, how it should be done, when it should be done, whom may partake, etc.

Quote

Schisms are the work of the world and brought into the Church like so much dust on our feet.

Sadly that is true.

Pax Christi,
John

This is well-expressed for situations when individuals or small groups come in the the Church. But when east and west seek communion, then it becomes somewhat of a different story. Even if communion includes a
forgive and forget - we don't question the past validity of ___________ - element, such
questions will arise as differences and issues for the future of that communion. Then the pastoral approach is not enough.
It has to become one of theological examination and probably council.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by basil:
The Orthodox Church really has no opinion on mysteries and other rites of non-Orthodox Christians. She is not called to have one; that's God's problem, not hers.

It becomes an issue ONLY when non-Orthodox seek to be reconciled with Orthodoxy.

At that point, it's a pastoral issue. The cut-and-dried dichotomy of, "If it's not A, then it has to be B," is not a pastoral approach. Such dialectic never is when you're talking about real people.

As quoted above:

"This is well-expressed for situations when individuals or small groups come in the the Church. But when east and west seek communion, then it becomes somewhat of a different story. Even if communion includes a
forgive and forget - we don't question the past validity of ___________ - element, such
questions will arise as differences and issues for the future of that communion. Then the pastoral approach is not enough.
It has to become one of theological examination and probably council."

Why? It sounds a lot like the Lawyers (Run for your Spiritual Lives!!!) have absconded with the perquisites of the faithful, wherein the 'people of God' are told: "You have to accept this or else God will zap your sorry [=ignorant] tails.

This is NOT Orthodoxy or r-e-a-l Catholicism. It is an attempt by what I believe are 'special interests' to usurp the qualities of love that are the hallmark of the Christian community and not those of the lawyers' guild.

If Christians allow themselves to be subjugated to the Law (of whatever kind), we're going to be victimized by the Law, and its practitioners. We've got a higher calling: Love of God; love of one's neighbor.

Blessings, y'all!

Dear Friends,

John Betts' earlier points on the Schism of Ad 1054 are well taken.

However we view this, the excommunications were levelled at persons, not Churches.

The point is, the Church, East and West, continued largely unaware about what happened on that fateful day in AD 1054.

It was really only after the Sack of Constantinople that the positions hardened and the real break occurred.

East Slavic Churches often continued in their good relations with Rome.

St Peter I Metropolitan of Kyiv, appears to have agreed with Rome at the Council of Lyons, at least personally,

St Macarius, Met. of Kyiv, was writing a (nice) letter to the Pope when his cathedral was attacked by the Tatars and he was martyred before the altar.

St Peter Mohyla Met. of Kyiv was not against ecumenical talks with Rome and participated in a number of informal meetings.

There are many other examples that one could cite. It was clearly the Greeks themselves who had the greatest reason to hate the Roman West.

One important reason why the Uniate Church arose in Eastern Europe was not as a result of Latin pressure so much as difficulties of the Slavic Bishops relating to Constantinople who had them watched over like children through its Stauropeghial Brotherhoods of laity who had the authority of the Patriarch to boss the bishops around.

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
[B]As quoted above:

[me] Even if communion includes a
forgive and forget - we don't question the past validity of ___________ - element, such
questions will arise as differences and issues for the future of that communion. Then the pastoral approach is not enough.
It has to become one of theological examination and probably council."

[Dr. John]Why? It sounds a lot like the Lawyers (Run for your Spiritual Lives!!!) have absconded with the perquisites of the faithful...[snip]...This is NOT Orthodoxy or r-e-a-l Catholicism.

First of all, you are not in a position to say what is Orthodoxy or what "is NOT Orthodoxy." Second, if you don't admit the fact that past practices have to be critically examined (as your own Congregation of the Faithful and Orthodox leaders both agree needs to be done for the future of any communion) then it sounds like you are about to be in communion with ECUSA
where anything for sake of communion goes! Spit!

How do figure that? It would certainly seem to me that Dr. John has just as much if not more qualification than many people to say what is or is not Orthodoxy, as do so many of the other posters to this forum who all totalled have an immense understanding of Catholic and Orthodox theology, history, spirituality and liturgy.


Of course things need to be critically examined. But when certain people get hold of certain issues for 'examining', they can get so caught up in such business that they forget that there are real Churches out there made up of real people who are in great need of a lot more spiritual care and a lot less critical examining. I'm glad we have Dr. John here to keep pointing this much neglected reality out to us. Seems pretty in synch with the Gospel and Orthodoxy.

As far as anything for the sake of communion, short of wholesale heresy or apostasy, what is wrong with a very sincere and passionate desire for communion? I don't honestly believe that anyone could say that the current state of the Church is normative and to be applauded. I think the world would be a lot better off with a Church united East and West.

As Fr. Tillard (Memory eternal!) has said, the greatest scandal in history is the division of the Church. We aren't giving the strongest witness in this situation to be sure. Certainly, all sides could do a lot better in their willingness to behave like Christians towards one another, Orthodox included. A Muslim family still holds the key to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the poor Ethiopian Orthodox monks are up in the roof somewhere - see how they love one another?

Lord have mercy!

In Christ,
Mike

Mike,

Your post seems to ramble in terms of what the point is that you are supposed to be making. First, you try to defend Dr. John's
statement about what is or is not Orthodoxy.
I don't presume to say what it is like to be an uniate even if I know a lot about it. Reminds me of the time a bunch of white liberals read Wright and Toomer and came down south, during the civil rights movement, and told blacks they shared their plight, pain, and cause. Second, you claim that communion is something that should be sought. I don't think anyone here has denied that.

To review, (1). Basil stated that the Orthodox practice, when dealing with people coming into the Church, was pastoral in nature. (2).I agreed. (3). But I added that this alone is insufficient for two churches attmpting to re-establish communion
and the process required theological examination and perhaps a council. The council idea has already been raised elsewhere in this forum. And with all the behind the scenes conferences, meetings, and discussions, it appears that in practice both sides have already discovered that communion won't occur without a lot of theological discussion and examination. So, Dr. John's objection to my statement that such was needed and that such was not Orthodoxy or real Catholicism seemed either profoundly naive or the opinion one would here from someone in ECUSA (communion at any cost). So I objected back. Here is the list both sides have agreed are key dividing issues that remain:

1. papacy,
2. nature of apostolic succession,
3. immaculate conception,
4. anselmian theory of atonement
and original sin,
5. filioque,
6. nature of episcopacy,
7. nature and intent of canon law,
8. actual content of canon law,
9. the western "nature" over "persons"
trinitarian doctrines vs eastern
monarchia,
10. uniates as good [Rome] or
as bad [Orthodox] model for the
shape of communion,
11. nature of ordination,
12. marriage, divorce, contraception.


And some of the problems come from Rome's continuing misperception of the make-up of the Orthodox Church. It has dealt almost exclusively with the Ecumenical Patriarch as if that office is an analogue to what the pope is in the western church. Unfortunately, as the EP's own direct flock shrinks to about 2000 souls in the Phanar (and since he is not head of the church in Greece), he has been putting on the airs of being "the leader" of world Orthodoxy to the protest of most Orthodox. Be that as it may.
Communion won't come unless all patriarchates and all autonomous and autocephalous churches are involved in the process. We are a federation with multiple centers of apostolic authority. One center cannot unilaterally decide for them all. Yet Rome seems to have been acting on the expectation that one center can decide for all.

Thomas,

You make some good points, but I wish to address only your last point: Actually, that is not the case. Rome has attempted to address all patriarchs and to engage them in dialog. This process is slowly gaining momentum and there are now only a few patriarchs who have not entered into direct dialog with Rome. Most notable among these, of course, is Alexei in Moscow! However, the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch is directly involved in dialog, both with Rome and with the Melkite Patriarch. Similar things are happening in virtuall all of the patriarchies, especially where there is both a Catholic and Orthodox patriarch.

The Roman Church clearly knows the limitiations of the Ecumenical Patriarch but, at the same time, must also work within the structure that has the blessings of the ecumenical councils and see Constantinople as the first among equals in the Orthodox Church, the patriarchy that is second in rank behind Rome! If she failed to do that whould she not be sending a message that says "I don't care what you think Orthodoxy is, I'm rolling my own!" I doubt that would work very well...

Edward, deacon and sinner

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 06-19-2001).]