Eastern Orthodox Ecclesiology: against false unions [my title]

The commotion about union of the churches makes evident the ignorance existing as much among the circles of the simple faithful as among the theologians as to what the Church is.

They understand the catholicity of the Church as a legal cohesion, as an interdependence regulated by some code. For them the Church is an organization with laws and regulations like the organizations of nations. Bishops, like civil servants, are distinguished as superiors and subordinates: patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans, bishops. For them, one diocese is not something complete, but a piece of a larger whole: the autocephalous church or the patriarchate. But the autocephalous church, also, feels the need to belong to a higher head. When external factors of politics, history, or geography prevent this, a vague feeling of weak unity and even separation circulates through the autocephalous churches.

Such a concept of the Church leads directly to the Papacy. If the catholicity of the Church has this kind of meaning, then Orthodoxy is worthy of tears, because up to now she has not been able to discipline herself under a Pope.

But this is not the truth of the matter. The catholic Church which we confess in the Symbol (Creed) of our Faith is not called catholic because it includes all the Christians of the earth, but because within her everyone of the faithful finds all the grace and gift of God. The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it.

Of course, the Church is intended for and extended to the whole world independent of lands, nations, races, and tongues; and it is not an error for one to name her catholic because of this also. But just as humanity becomes an abstract idea, there is a danger of the same thing happening to the Church when we see her as an abstract, universal idea. In order for one to understand humanity well, it is enough for him to know only one man, since the nature of that man is common to all men of the world.

Similarly, in order to understand what the catholic Church of Christ is, it suffices to know well only one local church. And as among men, it is not submission to a hierarchy which unites them but their common nature, so the local churches are not united by the Pope and the Papal hierarchy but by their common nature.

A local Orthodox church regardless of her size or the number of the faithful is by herself alone, independently of all the others, catholic. And this is so because she lacks nothing of the grace and gift of God. All the local churches of the whole world together do not contain anything more in divine grace than that small church with few members.

She has her presbyters and bishop; she has the Holy Mysteries; she has the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. Within her any worthy soul can taste of the Holy Spirit's presence. She has all the grace and truth. What is she lacking therefore in order to be catholic? She is the one flock, and the bishop is her shepherd, the image of Christ, the one Shepherd. She is the prefiguring on earth of the one flock with the one Shepherd, of the new Jerusalem. Within her, even in this life, pure hearts taste of the Kingdom of God, the betrothal of the Holy Spirit. Within her they find peace which "passeth all understanding," the peace which has no relation with the peace of men: "My peace I give unto you."

"Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... to the Church of God which is at Corinth ...." Yes, it really was the Church of God, even if it was at Corinth, at one concrete and limited place.

This is the catholic Church, something concrete in space, time, and persons. This concrete entity can occur repeatedly in space and in time without ceasing to remain essentially the same.

Her relations with the other local churches are not relations of legal and jurisdictional interdependence, but relations of love and grace. One local church is united with all the other local Orthodox churches of the world by the bond of identity. Just as one is the Church of God, the other is the Church of God also, as well as all the others. They are not divided by boundaries of nations nor the political goals of the countries in which they live. They are not even divided by the fact that one might be ignorant of the other's existence. It is the same Body of Christ which is partaken of by the Greeks, the Negroes of Uganda, the Eskimos of Alaska, and the Russians of Siberia. The same Blood of Christ circulates in their veins. The Holy Spirit enlightens their minds and leads them to the knowledge of the same truth.

There exist, of course, relations of interdependence between the local churches, and there are canons which govern them. This interdependence, though, is not a relation of legal necessity, but a bond of respect and love in complete freedom, the freedom of grace. And the canons are not laws of a code, but wise guides of centuries of experience.

The Church has no need of external bonds in order to be one. It is not a pope, or a patriarch, or an archbishop which unites the Church. The local church is something complete; it is not a piece of a larger whole.

Besides, the relations of the churches are relations of churches, and not relations which belong exclusively to their bishops. A bishop cannot be conceived of without a flock or independent of his flock. The Church is the bride of Christ. The Church is the body of Christ, not the bishop alone.

A bishop is called a patriarch when the church of which he is the shepherd is a patriarchate, and an archbishop when the church is an archdiocese. In other words, the respect and honor belongs to the local church, and by extension it is rendered to its bishop. The Church of Athens is the largest and, today, most important local church of Greece. For this reason the greatest respect belongs to her, and she deserves more honor than any other church of Greece. Her opinion has a great bearing, and her role in the solution of common problems is the most significant. That is why she is justly called an archdiocese. Consequently, the bishop of that church, because he represents such an important church is a person equally important and justly called an archbishop. He himself is nothing more than an ordinary bishop. In the orders of priesthood—the deacon, the presbyter, and the bishop—there is no degree higher than the office of the bishop. The titles metropolitan, archbishop, patriarch, or pope do not indicate a greater degree of ecclesiastical charism, because there is no greater sacramental grace than that which is given to the bishop. They only indicate a difference in prominence of the churches of which they are shepherds.

This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church, we see the primacy of prominence and respect passing from church to church in a natural succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2:1-2).

Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: "The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth." He writes in an amicable and supplicatory manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of Rome, St. Ignatius the God-bearer does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the hierarchy of the churches of his time.

When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal ecclesiology in order to secure theoretically that which circumstances would not offer. Thus it advanced from madness to madness, to the point where it declared that the Pope is infallible whenever he speaks on doctrine, even if because of sinfulness he does not have the enlightenment of sanctity the Fathers of the Church had.

The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the Iconoclasts.

Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there were others which held the second or third place. They were the various patriarchates, old or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not of bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advise Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv. Haer. III, 4, 1).

There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among the faithful of every church, clergy or lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood. And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of patriarch or pope. "There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church .... They [the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed the presbyters" (Chrysostom, Hom. XI on I Tim.).

Bishops have no right to behave like rulers, not only towards the other churches but also towards the presbyters or laymen of the church of which they are bishop. They have a responsibility to Oversee in a paternal way, to counsel, to guide, to battle against falsehood, to adjure transgressors with love and strictness, to preside in love. But these responsibilities they share with the presbyters. And the presbyters in turn look upon the bishops as their fathers in the priesthood and render them the same love.

All things in the Church are governed by love. Any distinctions are charismatic distinctions. They are not distinctions of a legal nature but of a spiritual authority. And among the laymen there are charisms and charisms.

The unity of the Church, therefore, is not a matter of obedience to a higher authority. It is not a matter of submission of subordinates to superiors. External relations do not make unity, neither do the common decisions of councils, even of Ecumenical Councils. The unity of the Church is given by the communion in the Body and Blood of Christ, the communion with the Holy Trinity. It is a liturgical unity, a mystical unity.

The common decisions of an Ecumenical Council are not the foundation but the result of unity. Besides, the decisions of either an ecumenical or local council are valid only when they are accepted by the consciousness of the Church and are in accord with the Tradition.

The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church unity. It made that bond of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power of God and confidence in the power of human systems.

But let no one think that the Papacy is something which exists only in the West. In recent times it has started to appear among the Orthodox too. A few novel titles are characteristic of this spirit, for example, "Archbishop of all Greece," "Archbishop of North and South America." Many times we hear people say of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the "leader of Orthodoxy," or we hear the Russians speaking of Moscow as the third Rome and its patriarch as holding the reins of the whole of Orthodoxy. In fact, many sharp rivalries have begun. All these are manifestations of the same worldly spirit, the same thirst for worldly power, and belong to the same tendencies which characterize the world today.

People cannot feel unity in multiplicity. Yet this is a deep mystery. Our weakness or inability to feel it originates from the condition of severance into which the, human race has fallen. People have changed from persons into separated and hostile individuals, and it is impossible for them now to understand the deep unity of their nature. Man, however, is one and many; one in his nature, many in persons. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity, and the mystery of the Church.

It is imperative that Christians realize that the Church has sacramental and not administrative foundations; then they will not suffer that which has happened to the Westerners who followed the Pope in his errors because they thought that if they did not follow him, they would automatically be outside the Church.

Today the various patriarchates and archdioceses undergo great pressures from political powers which seek to direct the Orthodox according to their own interests. It is known that the Patriarchate of Moscow accepts the influence of Soviet politics. But the Patriarchate of Constantinople also accepts the influence of American politics. It was under this influence that the contact of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the similarly American-influenced, Protestant, World Council of Churches was brought about, and its servile disposition toward the Pope started to take on dangerous dimensions and even to exert over-bearing pressure upon the other Orthodox churches.

America thinks that it will strengthen the Western faction against communism if, with these artificial conciliations, it unifies its spiritual forces. But in this way the Church becomes a toy of the political powers of the world, with unforeseeable consequences for Orthodoxy.

Are the Orthodox people obliged to follow such a servile patriarchate forever? The fact that this patriarchate for centuries held the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world cannot justify those who will follow it to a unifying capitulation with heresy. Rome also once had the primacy of importance and honor in the Christian world, but that did not oblige Christians to follow it on the road of heresy. The communion with and respect for one church on the part of the other churches remains and continues only as long as that church remains in the Church, that is, as long as it lives and proceeds in spirit and truth. When a patriarchate ceases to be a church, admitting communion with heretics, then its recognition on the part of the other churches ceases also.

The Orthodox people must become conscious of the fact that they owe no obedience to a bishop, no matter how high a title he holds, when that bishop ceases being Orthodox and openly follows heretics with pretenses of union "on equal terms." On the contrary, they are obliged to depart from him and confess their Faith, because a bishop, even if he be patriarch or pope, ceases from being a bishop the moment he ceases being Orthodox. The bishop is a consecrated person, and even if he is openly sinful, respect and honor is due him until synodically censured. But if he becomes openly heretical or is in communion with heretics, then the Christians should not await any synodical decision, but should draw away from him immediately.

Here is what the canons of the Church say on this: "... So that if any presbyter or bishop or metropolitan dares to secede from communion with his own patriarch and does not mention his name as is ordered and appointed in the divine mystagogy, but before a synodical arraignment and his [the patriarch's] full condemnation, he creates a schism, the Holy Synod has decreed that this person be alienated from every priestly function, if only he be proven to have transgressed in this. These rules, therefore, have been sealed and ordered concerning those who on the pretext of some accusations against their own presidents stand apart, creating a schism and severing the unity of the Church. But as for those who on account of some heresy condemned by Holy Synods or Fathers sever themselves from communion with their president, that is, because he publicly preaches heresy and with bared head teaches it in the Church, such persons as these not only are not subject to canonical penalty for walling themselves off from communion with the so-called bishop before synodical clarification, but they shall be deemed worthy of due honor among the Orthodox. For not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers have they condemned, and they have not fragmented the Church's unity with schism, but from schisms and divisions have they earnestly sought to deliver the Church" (Canon XV of the so-called First and Second Council).

We have a positive statement to that efect in one of the canons of the Council in Trullo

Why didn't +Photius complain about the use of unleavened bread then? You are reading into the canon. It is talking about bread "of the Jews", not "of the Western Catholics". Trullo, when it singles out the Romans on the use of marriage by clerics and Saturday fasting, explicitly does so. It would be a departure from the custom of the council to have made no reference to the Western practice, if that was what was condemned.

Besides, if true, the council in Trullo would not have been received in the West, so how can it be authoritative? Simply repeating its authority as a mantra doesn't make it so. The Nestorians still think Ephesus 449 is an infallible witness to the 'Tradition' of the Church and, if your interpretation of Trullo is correct, you'd be little better off than them.

your unswerving devotion to wafer worship

Jack Chick redivivus?

Canon 32 is silent on this and so should we be.

When Rome thought that the difference was to its advantage, it condemned the usage of leavened bread and thought it mattered. When it became to its advantage to allow the use of leavened bread (even then, it claimed that the Eastern practice was tolerable but not strictly correct), then Rome became latitudinarian on the issue.

I'm not familiar with the details of this controversy, and it may be that the Orthodox Church will decide that leavened and unleavened bread alike were of apostolic usage and are equally acceptable practices -- just as we believe that clerical celibacy and non-celibacy were both apostolic practices.

To me, it is just one more thing -- like the filioque, Papal universal jurisdiction and infallibility, clerical celibacy -- where the tradition of the many churches of the East are united and different from that of Rome. And yet many Roman polemicists claim that their teachings were universal and apostolic, and that somehow the East lost these teachings without a trace and without any record of controversy.

I accept it as Ecumenical because the Church does.

Show me where Trullo was accepted by the entire Church, east and west, before 1054.

The teaching of the Church is that the Council in Trullo was a continuation of the Fifth Council that dealt with matters left unfinished at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. All of the canons in Trullo were confirmed at the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was in 553, i.e. 139 years before the Council in Trullo in 692. The Sixth Ecumenical Council could not have confirmed Trullo because it closed eleven years before it in 681.

Yeh, me and the rest of the Church are "reading into".

Yeah, you and only the Orthodox Church. Again, so me where this interpretation was universally accepted before 1054.

It's the Tradition that's infallible...

And yet you can so me no Tradition before the Schism that condemns the use of unleavened bread.

Some modern Orthodox seem to be moving towards a view that says that the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, but energetically and not hypostatically.

This was the view of the Council of Blachernae in 1285, and of St. Gregory Palamas.

I can't see how though, the restriction of the substantial (but not hypostatic existence) procession to the Father alone can be squared with the understanding of the Alexandrians, especially St. Cyril. There seems some confusion on that site, for they note:

"In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, 'the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son'"
"2. eternal energetic procession (eternal manifestation): from the Father through the Son. This one denotes the common substance or ïõóßá (ousia) which the Spirit in deriving from the Father alone as Person or õðüóôáóéò (hypostasis) receives from the Son"

I thought the entire point of Palamas' doctrine was a real distinction between substance and energy, so that int he Trinity there is three hypostases, one substance, and one energy. Then they turn around and say the energetic procession is the substantial procession!

At Florence, it was stated:

"The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto."

This really seems to be the critical point - the Filioque must not be used to deny the Father the Monarchia.

In light of this, tt seems to me that the correct meaning must be this. The Father is the sole cause of the hypostatic existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son by generation, the Holy Spirit by procession. The distinction between the two, so that there are not two Sons or two Spirits, is that the procession of the Spirit can only take place in the context of the Son being generated, so that the Holy Spirit proceeds through and from the Son, who communicates by that process together with the Father the substance and energy of the Godhead to the Holy Spirit.

The Son does not cause and is not the source of the hypostatic existence of the Spirit, but instead gives the Spirit the differentiation in the hypostasis of the Spirit being Spirit and not Son because the generation of the Son's hypostatic existence necessarily causes the hypostatic existence of the Spirit. Thus phrases like the Father generates the Son by breathing His Spirit through Him, the Sonis the projector of the Spirit, etc.

"Show me where Trullo was accepted by the entire Church, east and west, before 1054."
Show me where the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Patriarchate of Ethiopia and by the Assyrian Church of the East. You can't. And yet we(you & I), accept it as God-inspired. That's how it is with the councils. They are not automatically accepted from day one as Ecumenical or as God-inspired. Some start out that way and get rejected. Others get accepted over time. I believe Vatican I & II will both be overwhelmingly rejected over time. In fact, the process of that rejection is already well under way.

"The Fifth Ecumenical Council was in 553, i.e. 139 years before the Council in Trullo in 692. The Sixth Ecumenical Council could not have confirmed Trullo because it closed eleven years before it in 681."
Well, ya got me on a date. But by your logic, the Council of Nicaea could not have confirmed all of the regional councils that it confirmed. But it did.

" Yeah, you and only the Orthodox Church. Again, so[sic] me where this interpretation was universally accepted before 1054." It's implicit.

" And yet you can so me no Tradition before the Schism that condemns the use of unleavened bread."
The Church does not normally condemn heresy in advance but only as it arises. Got it?

Show me where the Council of Chalcedon was accepted by the Patriarchate of Ethiopia and by the Assyrian Church of the East. You can't. And yet we(you & I), accept it as God-inspired.

Right, because it was accepted by the Apostolic See.

They are not automatically accepted from day one as Ecumenical or as God-inspired.

Compare this view with the confidence of the Council Fathers of Chalcedon, in their letter to Pope St. Leo:

For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, there he says he is in the midst of them, how great an intimacy will he show in regard to the five hundred and twenty priests, who have preferred to both native land and to labor the knowledge of confession for him. Over these you ruled as a head over the members, among those holding office, displaying your good will.

"'And yet we(you & I), accept [the Council of Chalcedon] as God-inspired.' Right, because it was accepted by the Apostolic See."

Hey, if that works for you Pope-worshipping azymites, fine by me. I could care less. The point is that this was a God-inspired Council. So quit messing around with the Eutychians and the Nestorians by praying with them and by permitting them to receive your sacraments. If you are going to call a council Ecumenical, at least have the decency to obey it. But you can't even seem to manage to follow the First Council of Nicaea and the First Council of Constantinople without screwing up. So get your heads straightened out. After you do that, then come to us with your union schemes

"...Have you ever been hired to count the ballots in Chicago?"

As has been pointed out by a number of historians such as Runciman, logistical considerations were a major factor back then. A lot of stuff going on in the West, the eastern patriarchates did not know of. In fact, a lot of stuff going in the West was news to Rome itself. It took centuries, about 200-400 years, for Rome to catch on to the results of the Council of Toledo of 589. The West was a huge patriarchate and we're talking about the Dark Ages here. Civilization was in chaos in the West. Only in the East, within the Empire at least, were the lines of communication intact. Outside of the Empire, it was a real mess.

Step 2: the Greeks declare that the heretical Latins are no longer in the Church.

In fact, however, the very opposite occured due to this. As St. Firmilian of Caesarea noted in the third century:

For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all;

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.