I just found an interesting online Ph.D. dissertation, An Analysis of Anglican Concepts of the Papal Magisterium from the First Through the Tenth Lambeth Conference, by Burns K. Seeley (St. Paul University, Ottawa, 1971). Seeley was an Anglican at the time he was writing his dissertation; at some point, he became a Roman Catholic and a priest.
Given that many Orthodox opposed to the papal claims rely on Anglican controversial literature from this period, and that some of the more pro-papal Anglican literature is used by Roman apologists, this dissertation should be very germane to the discussions which take place on this blog.
I admit that I am a bit disappointed, from a very cursory glance, that Seeley does not devote any space to a discussion of Dom Gregory Dix and his work on episcopal and papal jurisdiction. It is also unfortunate that the dissertation was written too early to discuss the 1998 statement “The Gift of Authority” (not that I think that agreements with contemporary Anglicans actually mean much at all).
- Table of Contents and Introduction
- I. The Oxford Challenge (1867-1888)
- II. Primacy of Honour (1888-1908)
- III. Petrine Primacy of Authority (1908-1930)
- IV. The Papal Magisterium: Traditional and Developed Views (1930-1948)
- V. Papacy and Episcopacy: A Rapprochement? (1948-1968)
- VI. Comprehensive Analysis
- VII. Summary and Conclusions; Bibliography
- Abstract
At least on my browser, some of the links are not loading. I don’t know why.
I noticed after a quick glance at Seeley’s conclusion that he views the “Church militant” as needing the authority of Peter’s successor.
Cathedra Unitas, I was wondering if you have read Peter Sherrard’s “Church, Papacy and Schism” and his arguments concerning the division of the Church into the “Church triumpant” and the “Church militant.” This division is a consequence of Western metaphysics; there is no such division in the East.
As Seeley is approaching the Petrine questions from Anglicanism, I wonder if he adequately examines this area. It appears on my cursory glance that he takes for granted that the Church can and should be understood in this dualistic way. If the Church is divisible into “triumphant” and “militant” parts, then I would agree that a Vicar is needed. But the ecclesiology of the East seems to suggest otherwise.
This division is a consequence of Western metaphysics; there is no such division in the East.
LOL. This is beginning to sound like a mantra. (Well, hmmm, a mantra is an Eastern Thing…isn’t it?
)
I hope you won’t mind my pointing out that there is nothing “dualistic” about the Catholic view. Catholics do not divide the Church into the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant. Rather, we divide it into the Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. That’s three, not two. A nice round Trinitarian number…don’cha think?
Whatever the papacy is what Roman Catholics say it is or a man-made rank of bishop as good as the others for the orderly running of the church, he is Anglicans’ patriarch: they were Roman Catholics before the unpleasantness under the Tudors.
bblampe,
I have read Sherrard, but too long ago. I would have to revisit his argument to be able to comment intelligently. My initial impression, however, is that the notion of a “Church Militant” is far older than any supposed “division” between “western” and “eastern metaphysics” – and I think that this whole line of argumentation can be seriously overdone anyhow. If indeed its true (which I’m not sure it is) that the East does not share a notion of the Church “militant” upon earth, I would submit that this is a flaw rather than an advantage. I would find it very hard to resist a gnostic protestant notion of the true Church as “invisible” and “ideal”, floating serenely above the ickyness of the wicked world.
I am a bit more familiar with the arguments made by Afanassieff about what he regards as the negative development of the notion of the “Universal Church” (a notion which must be resisted because of its implications for the attendant notion of a universal primate). Aidan Nichols points out the serious flaws of Afanassieff’s take in two articles in The Heythrop Journal, XXXIII (1992).
It seems to me that both Sherrard and Afanassieff argue the way they in order to preclude any ecclesiological notion that would inevitably lead to a universal primacy in the Church. Afanassieff, for his part, seems to admit as much: “Orthodox polemics against the primacy of Rome depend, broadly speaking, on Roman Catholic theology. This is not surprising, since the actual aim of Orthodox theology is to refute arguments put forth in favor of Roman primacy.” (source)
The idea that there is no such distinction as between the Church militant and the Church triumphant in Eastern metaphysics is just too silly to bear much rebuttal. Are we really to understand that BBLampe wishes to maintain that folks in the East cannot conceive a difference between those who have died and passed to their reward and those who have not? Why then do the Easterners bury corpses? Why are there ikons of St Tikhon but not of Patriarch Alexei? Why do they call upon the Theotokos to pray for them in the liturgy, but not Mrs Vladichynka in the house next to the church?
Just because the Eastern Orthodox do not use the terms “militant” and “triumphant” does not mean that the distinction does not exist in the East, and the claim that it does not is only sustainable by recourse to a truly strained process of equivocation and evasion. Until I see ikons of folks still living appear in churches, I am not buying this claim.
Even though the unicode characters may not properly display for everyone, I think you can still read all that’s necessary in this article (the passage is Matthew 16:18, so just get out your Greek New Testament and you can figure out what characters appear where the square blocks appear in Internet Explorer. (Firefox may display them okay). Anyway, it looks like a major breakthrough in the interpretation of this passage has been made: http://scotteriology.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/shocking-new-biblical-discovery/
Wow, that is quite a breakthrough! Thanks!
Ok,
I give up.
I repent.
I was wrong.
I have a large globally spanning church for sale with some prime real estate in Rome as well as other places.
Er, sorry about the 4th Crusade and the Inquisition. For all the indulgences, your IOU’s are on their way.
Limbo,
Purgatory,
Papal infallibility,
Immaculate Conception,
Development of Doctrine,
er..sorry about that stuff too (psyche!)
Sorry, I’d love to chat more but I should probably run..”It’s Clobberin’ Time!!!”
Cathedraunitatis,
Can you give more exact references for those Aidan Nichols articles in The Heythrop Journal (titles, page range, and such)? I would be interested in asking our local interlibrary loan program to get them for me.
Father Joseph,
The two articles are:
“The Appeal to the Fathers in the Ecclesiology of Nikolai Afanas’ev: I. From the Didache to Origen.” Heythrop Journal XXXIII (1992), pp. 125-145.
“The Appeal to the Fathers in the Ecclesiology of Nikolai Afanas’ev: II. From Cyprian to Denys.” Heythrop Journal XXXIII (1992), pp. 247-266.
There’s also this interesting article:
“Nikolai Afanas’ev and the Byzantine Canonical Tradition.” Heythrop Journal XXXIII (1992), pp. 415-425.
Much thanks.
My comment about the division of “militant” and “triumphant” is speaking specifically about Roman ecclesiology, not about hagiography, and it was meant in the context of Sherrard’s argument. Of course the East and West do not deny bodily death. (Let’s not forget, however, the East’s emphasis on theosis, and their preferred phrase “fallen asleep in the Lord,” both customs that emphasize the connenction between “physical” and “spiritual” life.) Of course the East does not deny that the earthly and heavenly realms are distinguishable. THe point of the Incarnation is that it was two realms being united in one person.
Ecclesiologically speaking, the Church, being the Body of Christ, is the extension of the Incarnation. It bridges the two realms. Sherrard points to the tendency of Rome (due to its view of government) to seperate these two realms to a point that damages the Church’s Eucharistic reality. His point is not that Roman teaching or practise denies the oneness of the community of saints, but that the structure and exercise of papal power confuses and compromises this oneness.
Catherdra Unitas: do you suggest that Afenasieff was saying that Orthodox theology developed only in reaction to Roman theology? If we are viewing things at a point when Orthodox and Roman theologies are identifiably distinct, wouldn’t it be the duty of the “right” side (which ever one that might be) to demonstrate the falsehoods of the wrong side, wherein the two theologies contradict?
Also, I am wondering if you are disregarding Afenasieff and Sherrard on the basis that they argue (“categorically”) against universal ecclesiology (I can’t speak for Afe, but at least Sherrard does). Do you not see this line of argument as valid and possible? Certainly it is not that helpful for ecumenical dialogue, but it is one of the better explanations I have read as far as explaining the differences in Roman and Orthodox theologies. (Keep in mind that Sherrad, from what I remember, is not arguing against inter-, vs. intra-, diocesan primacy but of autonomous primacy, i.e., governing “over” the Chruch rather than from “within” the Church.)
bb: I still don’t get the dualism charge. I’m a cradle Catholic, taught by nuns and the whole nine yards, and I was always taught that the Church has three parts, not two: The Church Militant, the Church Suffering, and the Church Triumphant. You keep ignoring the Church Suffering, but is it entirely fair to do so? Are you not setting up a strawman thereby? The Church Suffering is integral to Catholic ecclesiology. It cannot be overlooked or ignored just so that a charge of dualism can be sustained.
ISTM that a tripartite model is profoundly Trinitarian—which should resonate with the Orthodox, shouldn’t it?
God bless,
Diane
My comment about the division of “militant” and “triumphant” is speaking specifically about Roman ecclesiology, not about hagiography, and it was meant in the context of Sherrard’s argument.
But this only makes sense if we begin from the presupposition that ecclesiology and hagiography are wholly separate and distinct, as if somehow the question “what is the Church?” could be considered independantly of the question “what is the Holy?”. The whole idea is muddled and simplistic to my mind, and the fact that such a distinction is necessary in order to sustain the critique that you are advancing, dear BBLampe, simply serves to bring to light its inadequacy (if you will forgive the brusqeness of my saying so).
I return to my earlier remark. The East clearly does distinguish between the Church considered in Her “triumphant” aspects and considered in Her “militant” aspects. Even among the Eastern luminaries, the Church is not ignorant of the fact that there are those in Her number still running and those who have already won the race. As such, whether or not Fr Seeley’s argument can be said to make sense from an Eastern perspective (such is not for me to say), I am hard pressed to believe that the reason it is not convincing to Eastern ears is because of a lack of appreciation in the East for the distinction between the Church “militant” and “triumphant.”
Greg and Diane,
I must not be understanding the Catholic teaching of militant-(suffering)-triumphant then. I do apologize if my proposition misrepresented authentic teaching about the Church.
I would like to clarify that I in no way suppose that hagiography and ecclesiology are seperable. As you say, Greg, they are integrally related. Diane, I do appreciate the correction and, yes, there seems to be a nice symbolism in the three parts.
Can we at least agree that Orthodox ecclesiology–in as far as it differs in its resistence to papal authority–places more responsibility on the lower-orders of clergy and the laity than on the highest levels of office. In the absence of a vicarious head, the East resorts/suppose the whole Church is capable of taking care of itself. (I’m speaking only in the most general way of course.)
The “authority vacuum” of the East that would seem obvioius to Rome is supposedly filled in the East by the witness of the all the Church. (This is manifested in the tradition that doctrine must be “received” such as was demonstrated after Florence.)In Rome, Christ granted his Church a visible, vicarious Rock, something solid. In the East, that rock is diffused throughout the whole Church.
My original point is that, given this distinction, does this not tell us something about the differences of ecclesiology? I am going to take a wild guess and say that Rome’s tripartite division of the church into miltitant-suffering-triumphant is meant to correspond roughly to the three “realms” of existence: earthly life, purgatory and paradise. Please inform/correct me on this if I am mistaken.
What I am wondering is, does the pope govern all three “parts” of the church? I thought he only ministered to the church militant (because the triumphant church no longer needs his help, they are already saved). If the earthly church is the militant church, then a visible leader would seem necessary or at least expedient.
From what I have read, the Orthodox view Chirst’s work as bringing the militant-suffering-triumphant elements all to the Church today. Divine liturgy is famously “heaven-on-earth” in the Orthodox tradition. Eastern Christians still go through the transformation of theosis, but there is no (or only an insignificat) gap between the militant, the suffering and the triumphant.
Thanks.