www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Catholicity

Can someone please explain the EO understanding of "Catholicity?"

According to Vatican 2, catholicity is defined as "completeness." Each particular Church is Catholic because that particular Church contributes to the "completeness" (or wholeness) of the Church universal. This underscores the necessity of that particular Church to be a member of the Church universal in order to be "Catholic" - not that the particular Church needs to be part of the Church universal in order to be "Catholic" (though that is certainly an important aspect), but that the Church universal needs the particular Church to be part of her in order for the Church universal to be complete or whole (i.e., "Catholic").

V2 is the first time that the Church in history ever made an official pronouncement on the ecclesiology (or the nature) of the Church. I don't expect that EOC's have a similar official document on the matter, but I'd be interested to know what our EO brethren think about the CC's definition of "Catholicity."

My current impression of the EO understanding of "Catholicity" is that it only refers to the local/particular Church, but neglects the universal aspect of the term. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

So what is the EO concept of Catholicity? Is the V2 teaching acceptable? If EO synodal statements have been made, please quote them.

NOTE: I'm not interested in discussing the popular understanding of "Catholic" as "geographically universal," I hope we can just focus on the official Catholic definition as proposed by V2.

Blessings,
Marduk

Catholicity, for the Orthodox, refers to both the universal and the particular church. Or rather, the particular church contains within itself, holographicly, the fullness of the universal catholic church.

If your definition is really that of Vatican II, I would say it is a bit murky. Particularly, I'm not sure what this means: he Church universal needs the particular Church to be part of her in order for the Church universal to be complete or whole. What does a church universal without a particular church look like?

Some writings to consider:

Two essays by Vladimir Lossky, in particular, develop and discuss the meaning of this important term, catholic. Lossky discusses the term catholic in relation to the Church in an essay entitled “Concerning the Third Mark of the Church: Catholicity.”127 In another essay entitled “Catholic Consciousness: Anthropological Implications of the Dogma of the Church,”128 he discusses the sense in which considerations of the church as catholic can be applied to anthropology and consciousness. Because of its occurrence in the creed, the term catholic is usually first associated with the Church and ecclesiology and, actually, the subject of both Lossky’s essays is the church...

Lossky points out that in its primary sense catholic does not mean universal. The term ecumenical has more this sense. The terms catholic and universal, though externally equivalent, are not perfectly synonymous. The term universal is abstract compared to the term catholic which is concrete. Furthermore, catholic conveys wholeness, thus to say fully catholic is
redundant — and worse, is “partially catholic.”129
...
[s]ince catholic means as the whole, it is best understood in relation to the Trinity. Catholic, ultimately, describes the communion of persons in the Trinity: the Trinity is the catholic entity; the Trinity describes best what it means to be catholic. The Trinity, as the catholic entity, is the first sense, the ontological sense and meaning of catholic. Lossky writes:137


127 Lossky, Image and Likeness of God, 169-181.
128 Lossky, Image and Likeness of God, 183-194.
129 Volf, After Our Likeness, 268.
137 Lossky, Image and Likeness, 178-9.

Lossky, Vladimir. In the Image and Likeness of God, Erikson et al. eds. Crestwood: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.
________. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,1976.
Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness — The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.


Zizioulas also treats the term catholic in, for example:

138 Zizioulas, “Human Capacity,” 438.
139 Zizioulas, “Human Capacity,” 426.
140 Zizioulas, “Communion and Otherness,” 351.
141 Zizioulas, “Human Capacity,” 408.

Zizioulas, John D. “Human Capacity and Human Incapacity: A Theological Exploration of Personhood,” Scottish Journal of Theology, 28 (1972): 401-448.

________.“Communion and Otherness,” St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 347- 361.

Thanks ajk. That was very informative! I wonder if Lossky is much-read among EO laypersons. Perhaps his works are catechetical material in some jurisdiction?

The rhetoric I've heard and read from EO lay apologists is rather different from Lossky's. My impression, as noted, is that while the local/particular Church's wholeness is emphasized, the objective necessity of that local/particular Church's wholeness as part of the WHOLE Church is neglected.

From my understanding, the local/particular Church is whole, and the Church universal is whole. I imagine four perspectives in terms of ecclesiology:
(1) The local/particular Church NEEDS to be part of the Church universal for the local/particular Church to be whole, and the Church universal NEEDS the local/particular Church for the Church universal to be whole.

(2) The local/particular Church does NOT NEED to be part of the Church universal to be whole, while the Church universal NEEDS the local/particular Church to be whole.

(3) The local/particular Church NEEDS to be part of the Church universal to be whole, but the Church universal does NOT NEED the local/particular Church to be whole.

(4) The local/particular Church does NOT NEED to be part of the Church universal to be whole, and the Church universal does NOT NEED the local/particular Church to be whole.

I believe the ideal is (1); (2) seems to be a common view among EO laypersons; (3) seems to have been a common perspective of the Latin CC in the high Middle Ages, and perhaps is still present in the Latin CC today; (4) might be a view found among the more extreme polemicists within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Blessings

Dear Swan,

A universal Church without a local/particular Church cannot exist, imo. I believe that is the gist of the V2 teaching, which values the contribution of the local Church to the wholeness/catholicity of the Church universal.

There are two issues I perceive:
(1) Does the local/particular Church contribute to the wholeness/catholicity of the Church universal? V2 answers in the positive.

(2) Does the Church universal contribute to the wholeness/catholicity of the local/particular Church? V2 also answers in the positive.

What is the EO response to each of these two questions?

Blessings

To me, the idea of a universal church without a local church sounds like a meaningless abstraction, like a genus without a species. So again I find your way of framing the question rather murky. Of course local churches are in communion with one another as part of the universal church, but the universal church is also fully embodied in the local church. If all but one particular church were to disappear, that particular church would still contain within itself the entire catholic church.

On a side note, the Catholic insistence on union with the Pope of Rome as a dogmatic necessity seems to me to militate against genuine catholicity.

I get a sense that you are equating the Church of Rome with the church universal, since you are ascribing position (3) to medieval Latins. I will just remind you that the Latin church is also a local church, and each bishopric within it is also called a local church. There is no such thing as a universal church without a particular church- it's like saying a genus without a species.

Regarding position (2), I seriously doubt any Orthodox would entertain such a nonsensical position. The particular Orthodox churches all belong to the universal church and always have, occasional schisms and anomalies aside.

This is a hodgepodge post but hopefully it will at least provide some pertinent info and links.

I'd consider the works of Lossky and Zizioulas that I cited as quite academic rather than popular theological writing. The (1)-(4) categories are legitimate generalizations. For instance:

link: at pages 178-179 [researchgate.net]

I've posted on the three-and-only-three essential meanings of the term "Church."

(1) the one body of Christ - ekklesia as koinonia (communion)
(2) as gathered around the (monarchal) bishop - ekklesia as ekklesia apostolikē
(3) in the Eucharistic gathering - ekklesia as sunaxia (the snyaxis)
link

The church at Jerusalem right after Pentecost, celebrating the Eucharist, was all three.

I believe that view is in accord with the JOINT COMMISSION FOR THEOLOGICAL DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, SECOND PLENARY MEETING, Munich, June 30 to July 6 - 1982, THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE EUCHARIST IN THE LIGHT OF THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY. link [vatican.va]




"NEEDS" and "part" are on the right track but, following Lossky and Zizioulas for instance, consider terms of a vocabulary that pertains to the Trinity. There's a Medieval Dictum: Ecclesia ex Trinitate.
link1 link2 link3

Thanks for the responses! I'll be very busy for the next two days, so I'll reply afterwards. I wasn't expecting the topic of the papacy to be brought up, but I will address that when I come back.

Blessings.

Dear Swan,

My questions appear pretty straightforward (to me anyway). Can you please explain what you find "murky" about them?

As far as the papacy, I don't understand how necessity of union with the Pope of Rome militates against catholicity. Do not EO believe in the necessity of unity with every orthodox bishop? Is not the necessity of union with orthodox bishops a hallmark of catholicity? Catholics believe the Pope of Rome is orthodox (and Orthodox, imo). Why should we Catholics not need to be in union with him? More to the ponit, how does being in union with, or believing in the necessity of union with, orthodos bishops militate against catholicity?

Even when I was not yet Catholic, and a formal member of the Coptic Orthodox Church, I never had any misgivings about the idea of necessity of union with the bishop of Rome. I certainly believed in the necessity of union with the Coptic Pope. My understanding was/is that if one believes in the orthodoxy of the head bishop, it is not only natural, but also naturally necessary, to be in union with the head bishop. Catholics obviously believe in the orthodoxy of the bishop of Rome, so I (when I was not yet Catholic) certainly could not begrudge their belief of necessary union with him. Of course, since I (at that time) did not believe the Pope of Rome was orthodox, I did not agree with the standard of necessary union with him. However, as noted, I realized that if Catholics believed the Pope of Rome was orthodox, they SHOULD believe that it was necessary to be in union with him. If they did not, then they would be inconsistent, and would themselves trample upon their claim of catholicity.

What I have detailed is what I call a "High Petrine" understanding of the papacy's role in light of what "catholic" means. There is also a popular "Absolutist Petrine"view among Catholics, particularly Latin Catholics (though not all Latin Catholics have an Absolutist Petrine ideaology; many adhere to the High Petrine view). Both the High Petrine and Absolutist Petrine views understand the necessity of union with the Bishop fo Rome. However, whereas the High Petrine view sees orthodoxy as the hallmark of catholicity (unity with the Pope of Rome is necessary because he is orthodox), the Absolutiist Petrine view sees union with the office of the papacy itself as the hallmark of catholicity (unity with the Pope of Rome is necessary because unity with the papacy is necessary).

The official position of the Catholic Church (per V2) is "High Petrine." Bishops are "catholic" when they are in communion not just with the Pope of Rome, but with EVERY bishop of the divinely-instituted College of bishops. In distinction, Absolutist Petrine ideology claims that communion with the Bishop of Rome is the one and only criterion.

Your own comments indicate you definitely do not hold to an Absolutist Petrine view; they also indicate you do not hold to a High Petrine view. I would appreciate an explanation of your perspective.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother ajk,

I can't say much more than that I am in agreement with what you wrote in those links.

Blessings,
Marduk

I'm not sure what you mean by "universal church," when you speak of the possibility of a universal church without a particular church. As I said, I find this to be a meaningless abstraction.


Yes, but we do not single out one particular see as the foundation of the entire church's unity, as the Catholic Church does with Rome (even after V2.) V2 did not abolish Papal supremacy and it did not abolish the notion that the Pope "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." Trying to interpret V2 in such a way that the Bishop of Rome is just one more bishop we should be in communion with because he happens to be orthodox/ catholic is untenable.

The dogmatic insistence on the Papacy as the foundation of church unity militates against catholicity because it denies the completeness of each particular church as an expression of the catholic church. It also does not square with church history.



Even so, the Pope is seen as the center of unity, the head of the college of bishops, the supreme bishop, etc. The rest of the bishops have no authority if they are not united under his leadership. He is not just another bishop.

Dear Swan,

I'm not sure where I stated the universal Church can be without a particular Church. Can you point it out? If I haven't written it anywhere, then I'm not sure what is preventing you from answering my questions. Are you able to answer my questions? If so, please do so.

The idea that no particular see can be the center of unity for a group of local Churches is a ttotally puzzling notion to me, I must admit. This is certainly a unique perspective that I have found among EO (though not all EO I've encountered share this perspective). I have certainly not encountered it among Oriental Orthodox.. That is what I call a "Low Petrine" pov (to be distinguished from the Absolutist Petrine and High Petrine views I mentioned earlier).. I explain my pov on this further below.

The characterisitc of "supremacy" for a head bishop is not foreign to me, since my background is Oriental Orthodox, not Eastern Orthodox (every OO styles their head bishop as "supreme"). So we'll have to agree to disagree on that one,. though my understanding of "supremacy" is very likely different from your own conception of the word -- i.e., your udnerstanding of "supremacy" probably equates to "absolutte power." That is certainly not my own understanding of the term (both when I was in the OO communion, and as a Catholic). The "absolute power" definition is, admittedly, a popular conception among Catholics, but that is certainly not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

See comment on the idea of a "center of unity" further below.

I believe you are confusing two things: (1) the person who holds the office of the papacy; (2) the office itself. Yes, V2 teaches that the office of the papacy is unique, estalbished by Christ, etc. But the holder of the office MUST be orthodox in order to hold that office. No Catholic, be they cleric or layperson, is obligated to be united to a heretical holder of the office. If that happens, that holder of the office will somehow be replaced. Only an orthodox person can sit on the throne of Peter. That is an absolute requirement, a prerequisite. But the qualifications of the holder of the office do not affect the existence/ necessity of the office itself.

The principle is that we must be united to the throne of Peter. This normatively means we must be united to whoever sits on the throne of Peter. But if the one who sits on the throne of Peter is not orthodox, we do not need to be united to that one who sits on the throne of Peter, but we must still be united to the throne of Peter itself.

Hence, far from being untenable, that is the reality.

The issue, of course, is not V2's solid, patristic teaching of the necessity to be united to the throne of Peter, but the claim of certain non-Catholics that there is no visible locus for that thronos on the universal level.

[]The dogmatic insistence on the Papacy as the foundation of church unity militates against catholicity because it denies the completeness of each particular church as an expression of the catholic church.[/quote]
I am totally dumbfounded as to how having a visible foundation of unity deprives a local/particular Church of its completeness/catholicity. Please give more details how you perceive this to be the case.

Maybe in the second millenium, but not in the first. Isn't our standard the first millenium?

First, the teaching that the head bishop of the Church universal is the center of unity for the Church universal, just as the head bishop of the Patriarchal Church is the center of unity for the patriarchal Church, just as the head bishop of a Metropolitan Church is the center of unity for the metropolitan Church, just as the local bishop is the center of unity for the local Church, is, I'm afraid, a non-negotiable for Catholics. Judging from the Ravenna Colloquy, most of the EO Churches agree with this teaching.

Second, "college" is merely a less formal term for "synod." I assume from your comment that either your own synod has no head bishop. Or if it does, you disagree with the fact that the synod has a head bishop. If you do not, why would you object to the fact that the College of bishops (the worldwide "synod" of bishops, so-to-speak) has a head bishop?

Third, I've already commented on our different, respective understandings of the word "supreme" above.

Fourth, are you saying that a local bishop can have authority if they are not united to the head bishop? Again, that is a foreign concept to me. It is simply unpatristic, imo. When I was still Oriental Orthodox, I would have debates about that matter with EO who share the same perspective as you (though, like I said, not all EO I"ve encountered share your pov). It is definitely what I call a "low petrine" pov. The fact is, according to the most ancient canons, any local bishop must be confirmed by his head bishop. If he did not obtain that confirmation, that local bishop would indeed have no authority. So, yes, I would disagree with your claim that a local bishop who is not united to a head bishop can have authority. In the Catholic Church, while the Pope does not confirm all bishops (the other Patriarchs confirm their own bishops), all bishops must be united with the Pope, because he is the head bishop of the Church universal. It's very simple, really. A local bishop must be united to the head of his Metropolitan Church, the head of his Patriarchal Church, and the head of the Church universal. That a local bishop must be united to these head bishops in order to have authority is a patristic principle, despite any objections to the contrary.

There are two contrary claims here: (1) There is no head bishop on the universal level; (2) There is a head bishop on the universal level. If there is a head bishop on the universal level, it stands to reason that every bishop must be united to him, regardless of what role one might think that head bishop (even the MP, who disagrees with the EP on some pertinent points on the matter, admits there is a head bishop on the universal level).. If there is no head bishop on the universal level, then there is no necessity of union with such a person/office.

Fifth, I would also disagree with your claim that a head bishop is "just another bishop." That statement requires qualification. Should I assume you disagree with the patristic praxis of the head bishop confirming other bishops; of a head bishop blessing the holy myron for all the Churches under his care, of a head bishop being the only one who can convene a synod, etc. etc.? A head bishop is set apart precisely because he has certain prerogatives/responsibilities that no other bishop has. Of course, ALL bishops are absolutely equal as far as their powers of sanctification, which is the most important function in and of the Church. In Catholic jargon, bishops are NOT equal in their power of jurisdiction. However, ALL bishops are equal in their power of orders. It is in the power of orders that the essence of the episcopacy lays. Hence, it is a just a straw man to claim that just because the Pope or other head bishops have certain prerogatives of jurisdiction, then that means they are somehow more of a bishop than other bishops. It is not that the CC teaches that the Pope and other head bishops are a different, higher order of bishops; rather it seems to me that its critics don't fully comprehend what the essence of the episcopacy is.

Blessings,
Marduk

Hi Marduk-

You have misinterpreted a lot of what I've written. Whether intentionally or not, I don't know. I think I've answered your questions sufficiently. I get the feeling now that you are an "Orthodox in communion with Rome." A while ago I realized that trying to have an honest/ meaningful discussion with such people about ecclesiology is like nailing jello to a wall. Have a blessed Holy Week.

Marduk has spoken!

All rise.