The latest issue of the Europaica Bulletin presents a number of interesting Orthodox reactions to the recent ecclesiological statement of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Both Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk (Moscow’s ecumenical representative) and Bishop Hilarion of Vienna (Moscow’s representative to the European institutions) are positive in their assessment of the document. They are 100% correct that this statement is “honest” and “brings nothing new” – that is, the document is truly indicative of the Catholic Church’s self-understanding. Of course, as Orthodox prelates committed to the exclusive ecclesiological claims of their own communion, they do not agree with Rome’s claims, and in fact they remark that “everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church”! I welcome this fresh honesty from representatives of both sides. Just as Kirill and Hilarion do not fault Rome with being honest about her own claims, no one should fault the Orthodox for being honest about their claims.
And then there are some more cranky Orthodox responses to the document – responses that I don’t entirely understand, since, again, both communions are crystal clear about their exclusive ecclesiological claims. Patriarch Teoctist of Romania was “stunned” by the document, which he regards as “brutal.” The Patriarch’s claim that the document expresses the viewpoint that Rome “does not even recognize us as a church” is strange, since the document affirms the complete opposite. Coptic Pope Shenouda III’s response is even more bizarre, and as with the Romanian Patriarch, one wonders whether he actually read the document before ranting about it.
Archpriest Lawrence Cross’s comment is interesting to me. First of all, I have no idea if the Archpriest is an Orthodox or an Eastern Catholic [Update – He is a Greek Catholic]. Secondly, I very much disagree with the Archpriest characterization of the document as “an appalling ecumenical gaff” and “woefully ignorant.” Kirill and Hilarion, eminent representatives of the Russian Church, do not seem to think so, thinking the statement to be truly conducive to “honest theological dialogue” (that is, true and authentic ecumenism). Third, I am intrigued by the Archpriest’s description of the Orthodox position on papal primacy: “The Orthodox already acknowledge that the primacy in the universal Church was awarded to the successor of Peter in Rome.” Do any Orthodox here take issue with this statement? I simply do not find general agreement among Orthodox as to meaning or validity of the basic concepts of “primacy,” “universal Church” or a “successor of Peter in Rome.” Perhaps I’m mistaken. Fourth, it’s hard to see how the document is rooted in “rooted in an ultramontane past.” As Kirill and Hilarion point out, the Orthodox, who cannot be accused of an “ultramontane past,” make similar exclusive claims about themselves (and in fact, one could argue that the Orthodox claims are far more exclusive). And, lastly, I don’t read the document as “allowing” or granting ecclesial status to the Orthodox. It seems to me that Rome, through this document, is simply restating the fact that she has always recognized that the Orthodox churches are true local or particular churches (possessing priesthood, sacraments, and all the ordinary means of salvation), only in a tragic state of schism from the Apostolic See of Peter.
I wish I read German well enough to be able to interpret the comments by Cardinals Kasper and Schönborn.
Archpriest Lawerence Cross is, if I am not mistaken, Greek Catholic.
In Christ,
+Fr Gregory
Ah, that explains a lot! Thanks, Father Gregory.
I wonder if Pope Shenouda wrote what he wrote because of political duress.
>Patriarch Teoctist of Romania was “stunned” by the document, which he regards as “brutal.” The Patriarch’s claim that the document expresses the viewpoint that Rome “does not even recognize us as a church” is strange, since the document affirms the complete opposite.
No, I don’t think so, CU. The document as I remember affirms (as did *Dominus Iesus*) the Orthodox as true (but “defective”) *churches*, which is quite different from recognizing an Orthodox *Church*.
The question I find fascinating is how, according to current Catholic teaching, an individual Orthodox church can be a “true particular church” while imperfectly united to the universal Church of Christ. Patristically, I think, there either a church was or wasn’t united to *The Church*, and if it wasn’t, it wasn’t a “true church” in any sense. But I’ll be happy to be corrected on that. Joe
Where can I find the Shoenborn and Kaspar comments? I’ll translate some of it for you.
unasancta
T. Chan – I thought about that possibility as well. The comment about Benedict making enemies of the Muslims may be a sign of that.
Joe – I took the Romanian Patriarch’s comments very differently. In my reading, he seems to be complaining that the CDF document un-churches the Orthodox in general, or the Romanian Church in particular. In fact, it’s pretty clear that the Patriarch acts as if the document lumps all non-Catholic communities together and treats them alike as non-churches. No attention whatsoever is given to the fact that the document very clearly distinguishes the Orthodox churches (yes, from the Catholic perspective, true particular churches though not THE Church) from Protestant ecclesial communities. So, I can’t help but think that the Romanian reaction is a very misinformed and knee-jerk reaction, in sharp contrast to the well-informed and balanced responses of the Russian representatives.
Unasancta – I’d be very happy to read what the two German Cardinals have to say. You can find the comments towards the middle of the Europaica Bulletin, here:
http://www.orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/124.aspx#7
Patristically, I think, there [sic] either a church was or wasn’t united to *The Church*, and if it wasn’t, it wasn’t a “true church” in any sense.
For my part, I am not really sure that this is what the Fathers said. It is certainly what the Orthodox take the Fathers to have said, but it is not really clear to me that this question was ever really treated in a sufficiently rigorous manner that we might actually say with any confidence that this is what the Fathers thought.
I think it is safe to say that, if Cyprian of Carthage were still writing today, he would hold to a position like the one that Joe describes above. I think it is probably safe to say that, if Augustine were still writing today he would probably take issue with this position (and have the better argument, at that). I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Ignatius of Antioch (on whose authority both Cyprian and Augustine would, at least in part, formulate their arguments) would side with Augustine if he were writing on this subject today. That said, given the paucity of explicit treatments on this subject, the most accurate formulation of the “Patristic” answer to this question would be “don’t know.”
Patriarch Teocist’s remarks are entirely incoherent. What can it possibly mean for him to complain that “it is hard to find a way to continue the dialogue with the Catholic Church, as long as it does not even recognize us as a church”? It is not clear that his own communion, the Eastern Orthodox, recognize the Catholics as a Church, but to the extent that they do, it is no more than precisely the sense in which the Vatican just affirmed that we Catholics regard him and his as a Church. In other words, if ecumenical engagment (which, one gathers from his remarks, are to be understood as something desirable) presupposes that each party recongizes the other as being just as much “the Church” as it considers itself to be, then the Orthodox are just as guilty as the Catholics of spoiling the dialogue.
Or do I misunderstand the Orthodox position? Is Patriarch Teocist really claiming that, in his mind, the Catholics are just as much the Church as he understands the Eastern Orthodox to be? Somehow, I find this claim incredible. If this is not the case, however, then how is the Catholic document any worse than this statement of the Russian Orthodox Jubilee Synod (and, by extension, Eastern Orthodoxy’s consensus ecclesiology)?
Not to get too far off the topic of this post, but …
If I recall correctly, Cyprian’s rigorist take on the boundaries of the Church, by Cyprian’s own admission, was by no means the majority opinion of the Church in his time. At best, it reflected a local North African custom. Pope Stephen, I think, could make a better claim to be representing the mind of the Church in the matter of baptisms performed outside of the visible boundaries of the Church. Basil the Great’s own policy on the reception of heretics and schismatics into the Church (a policy which has been officially accepted into the canonical tradition of the Orthodox Church) is quite a bit more liberal than Cyprian’s policy.
My reading of the Vatican’s current position on the ecclesial status of Orthodoxy is that it is not inconsistent with the patristic mainstream, though I agree with Greg that a simple appeal to “the Fathers” (as if they were some unanimous voice) is not really going to get us as far as we might like. Cyprian would obviously have a problem with the Vatican’s understanding of sacraments and ecclesial reality outside the visible boundaries of the Church, but I would think that other patristic figures such as Stephen, Augustine or Basil would be far more sympathetic.
The Vatican position seems to be that Orthodox churches are, in a real sense, “of the Church” – though they are separated from the Petrine office, which is a constituent element of the Church which the Lord founded. But the Orthodox are not the Church alone nor are they fully a part of the Church, since they exist in an objective state of separation from the Catholic Church, in which alone the Church of Christ fully “subsists.”
For my own part, I find this to be a very satisfactory ecclesiological model for understanding the Orthodox-Catholic schism. It is firm about the oneness of the visible Church which Christ founded, but it is also generous in recognizing some Christian reality in the Protestant communities, and true ecclesial/sacerdotal/sacramental reality in the Orthodox churches, albeit “wounded” and “deficient” in their lack of communion with the successor of Peter in the cathedra unitatis at Rome.
I find it very interesting that both Metropolitan Kirill and Bishop Hilarion seem to want to take this very model from and turn it around to apply to the Orthodox Church, saying that the one Church of Christ “subsists” fully only in the Orthodox Church. Does this mean that they would be willing to grant that the Roman Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches are “true particular churches,” albeit “wounded” and “deficient” in their lack of communion with the family of local Orthodox churches? It’s interesting to ponder, but I have no doubt that this sort of language would be resisted tooth-and-nail by more conservative Orthodox types.
More about the Coptic reaction here:
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=38645
My goodness, but that article is rich. For one thing, I cannot help but be amused at the irony that Pope Shenouda could be outraged by the Vatican saying something that his own Church was saying at the same time (viz. “my Church is the only true Church…”). For another, I am totally perplexed by the Coptic Catholic patriarchate’s attempt to distance itself from the curial document by claiming that the document applies only to the western rites of the Catholic Church. The document in question is an authoritative interpretation of the texts of Vatican II. As such, the Coptic Catholic patriarchate is implicitly fudging the authority of the second Vatican council. In what sense are they still “Catholic” if they do not hold to the same councils as the rest of us Catholics?
Greg–heh!! I could not agree more.
I suppose the most charitable interpretation of the Coptic response is that (as T. Chan said above) Pope Shenouda is under some sort of pressure from his Mohemmedan overlords. The reference to the Pope of Rome angering Muslims in his infamous Regensburg address is telling.
Sure, that is a perfectly charitable (and plausible) interpretation of the Coptic Orthodox response. What has me perplexed is the Coptic Catholic response. Do they seriously expect us to believe that the CDF document presents an understanding of the council which is only authoritative in the West, and that the eastern rites are free to read the conciliar texts as if they claim that the Catholic Church is not the one true Church? In what sense can the Coptic Catholic Church claim to be “Catholic” if she does not consider the Catholic Church to be the true Church?
That is a good point.
I don’t want to misunderstand you, CU. Are you saying that you agree that the Church of Christ subsists, i.e., as explained in the recent document, *exists* in its fullness, alone, in the “Catholic Church”, that is, the church united with Rome?
If so, that’s pretty much the ballgame as far as your choice, isn’t it? Joe
Joe –
I’m not going to say anything at this point about my personal plans.
As for my talk about the language of Lumen Gentium, I merely meant to convey that I very much like this (for lack of a better term) “ecclesiological model” because (1) unlike the “branch theory” it protects the concept of one visible Church, but (2) it also allows for a somewhat generous view of Orthodox as “true particular churches” and Protestants as “ecclesial communities.”
And I think it’s interesting that Metropolitan Kirill and Bishop Hilarion drop hints that such a “model” might be justly applied to the Orthodox Church’s exclusive claims. Kirill says point-blank that “everything contained in the Catholic document rightfully applies to the Orthodox Church”. Hilarion’s statement is even more clearly an attempt to apply the somewhat foreign language of Lumen Gentium to the Orthodox Church’s self-understanding. He says that Rome, from an Orthodox point of view, “lacks something” (i.e. is wounded, defective) in its lack of communion with the Orthodox Churches; and that the Protestants (lacking apostolic succession and sacraments) are not properly “churches” but “ecclesial communities” (am I justified in infering from this that Hilarion regards Rome as a “church” albeit defective or wounded?).
That’s all I meant … 😉
It just seems odd to the point of cognitive dissonance for this Pope, on the one hand with the Summorum Pontificum seek to address a serious liturgical injury imposed on the RC Church by a previous Pope, while on the other hand talk about deficiency and woundness of the Orthodox for NOT having been subject to this serious injury caused by the Papacy. I just don’t understand it.
CU,
I read Kirill’s and Hilarion’s declarations as only implying that the Orthodox Churches can be considered “The Church”in the fullest sense and I do not believe that their statements can be read as taking in all of Rome’s understandings of other Christians ,whether Orthodox “Churches” or Protestant “ecclesial communities”.
I believe Moscow’s statement to be along the lines of:
“The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as The Church but we disagree and believe that TheChurch is the Orthodox Church and as to how we officially view other Christians is not part of this declaration.”
I think it’s interesting that Metropolitan Kirill and Bishop Hilarion drop hints that such [the “ecclesiological model” of Lumen Gentium might be justly applied to the Orthodox Church’s exclusive claims.
Have you read the Jubilee Bishops’ statement which I linked in #8 above? The Russian bishops take a line very much like the one adopted in Lumen Gentium in that document.
Re: #17
Apples and oranges, Stephen. Sorry, I just don’t think that your comparison works.
Actually, Rome has shown a great willingness (according to some RCs, too much willingness) to listen to the Orthodox about what they find objectionable in the exercise of the Petrine Office. Some Orthodox find the whole idea of a Petrine Office to be objectionable (obviously, not much basis for dialogue there); but others, such as Olivier Clement, seem to far more amenable to John Paul II’s distinction between the “essence” of the Petrine Office (which in Rome’s view is non-negotiable) and the many ways (for good or for ill) this Office has been exercised in history.
Re: #18
Sinner – Admittedly, your take on Russians statements statements would be more consistent with other Orthodox opinions on the subject, but I still think that there are hints that Kirill and Hilarion see a huge difference between the ecclesial status of RCs and Protestants. Hilarion says that Protestants are much further from THE Church (Orthodoxy) than Rome because of their lack of apostolic succession and sacraments. This, I think, is far closer to a Lumen Gentium model than you indicate.
Furthermore, as Greg de Lassus has pointed out, the document “Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions” (adopted by the Jubilee Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in August 14, 2000) also seems to adopt a position very close to this one. It is firm in its affirmation that “The Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ established by our Lord and Saviour Himself” (1.1), but it also maintains a fairly generous point-of-view about Christian communities which have been separated from Orthodoxy. It doesn’t exactly adopt the Lumen Gentium language, but again, I think that the statements by Kirill and Hilarion show at least an openness to putting such language in service of Orthodoxy.
For what my opinion is worth and just basing my comments on the Orthodox responses, it seems that the document, which sounds to be the standard Roman Catholic position, would offend those who are ecumenical based on a firm belief that we are presently one Church and there are some misunderstandings to heal. Those who are of the position that we are not one Church will accept it as an obvious expression of Catholic (in the wide sense) teaching about the Church; the Orthodox would reply in kind, as some have with no offence taken.
Regarding St Cyprian, I see his position on the Church as strictly correct and the same position that I believe that St Basil would take. However, St Basil may have shown a greater exercise of economy. I tend to see St Cyprian reacting against a misuse of economy by restating the strict rule rather than perhaps denying any economy at all or expounding a different doctrine of the Church. All this is a surmise though and an attempt to reconcile the Fathers somewhat.
Personally, I struggle with how the Roman Catholics can see the Orthodox Churches as “true and particular” Churches in any form. I see the connection with Apostolic succession but once it comes to a valid Eucharist then the position gets interesting. As far as I understand things in Orthodox theology the Church is the Body of Christ, those united to Him in Baptism and continuing in the Eucharist. These things are given to us by Himself through the Mystery of the Priesthood. Thus, having a valid Priesthood and Mysteries means uniting with Christ, completely and wholly; the Eucharist isn’t given in part; a Bishop or Priest doesn’t partly make concrete the presence of Christ. A Church with valid Mysteries is deficient in nothing; it is the Church of Christ.
Churches in schism or heresy are causing a division in Christ, which cannot be, so rather they separate themselves from Christ. The moment for this may not be exact, e.g. the date of the Schism, and by economy it may be ignored later as being a human squabble without “real” separation, much economy being exercised, although a schism of over a couple of centuries is rather settled and one party or the other has really separated themselves from Christ at this stage, at least for not having healed the schism. (Both are guilty, both refuse to forgive, perhaps both are separated from Christ…)
By what theology does Rome justify stating that Orthodox have valid Sacraments and are true and particular Churches and at the same time see them as being deficient in anything? What deficiency is there in complete unity with Christ?
Sorry if I have gone off the topic of this thread. Perhaps the points should be addressed elsewhere.
By what theology does Rome justify stating that Orthodox have valid Sacraments and are true and particular Churches and at the same time see them as being deficient in anything? What deficiency is there in complete unity with Christ?
Great questions, IMHO.
Here’s my quick lunch-hour take-it-from-whence-it-comes stab at a partial answer:
“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.” — Saint Ambrose
“If anyone separate himself from this Chair [of Peter], can he imagine that he is still in the Church?” — Saint Cyprian
Father Patrick,
Not to get too far off topic, but I am a tad nervous about reading patristic authors, such as Cyprian or Basil, under the lens of later concepts such as “economy” as understood by some recent Orthodox canonists (such as Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain). (I should also add that Roman Catholics might make the same sort of mistake in terms of later scholastic sacramental theology.)
This may be an interesting modern Orthodox way to process the spat between Cyprian and Pope Stephen, but I’m not sure how far it gets us in understanding where the two bishops were actually coming from. I really don’t think that Stephen saw the issue as involving differences in the way that bishops decide to apply the rules … in fact, he was quite firm in his claim that Cyprian’s practice was a departure from the rule of the Church (and Stephen was supported here by the vast majority of bishops both in the West and in the East). In other words, it was NOT an issue of Rome being too liberal in doling out the “oeconomia” (from Cyprian’s perspective) or Cyprian being too “akribeia” (from Rome’s perspective) … it was a clash about what precisely the strict rule of the Church is.
(Now that I’ve gotten my two cents in about this particular side issue, 🙂 I’ll let Father Patrick make a response … and then let’s get back to the topic of this post!)
Re#23,
I think you are rather missing Fr Patrick’s point there, Diane. Your quotes might easily be read to mean simply that the Orthodox are not united with Christ. What he is asking is a much more complicated question – how can one be meaningfully said to be united to Christ and simultaneously suffering a defect?
Meanwhile, I wonder if this essay by the late George Florovsky does not get at an answer to Fr Patrick’s question?
CU, not sure what comparisions you are alluding to; my point is the seeming contradiction/misalignment between the two documents. (We have to fix something caused by the Papacy, but it is nonetheless you Orthodox who are wounded for not being attached to the Papacy). Please explain how this is not a contradiction.
Stephen,
You’re putting two totally different things together here (the RC liturgical reform and the Orthodox grievances against the Papacy), and I’m not sure how they’re connected.
There is a big difference between (1) Roman Catholics disagreeing amongst themselves about the rightness of a particular papal action (remember, we’re not dealing with infallible, irreformable matters here) all the while taking for granted what the Catholic Church teaches about the Petrine Ministry; and (2) Orthodox not only having grievances about many papal actions over the centuries, but also denying what the Catholic Church teaches about the Petrine Ministry and the indispensability of communion with it.
In a nutshell: Catholics who disagree with certain actions of the Papacy and yet believe what the Church teaches about the Papacy ≠ Orthodox denying what the Church teaches about the Papacy, about the essence of the Petrine Ministry as established by Christ for his Church.
Sorry, but I can’t see that there is any relation whatsoever between these two things. Apples and oranges.
All sorts of problems have been created among the Orthodox by bishops (Monophysitism, Monothelitism, jurisdictional brouhaha), and yet surely this is not taken to mean that those denominations who lack clergy are better for their lack of clergy.
Greg – I wish I had your gift of brevity. That’s exactly what I was getting at!
Thanks for the article Greg. It raises an interesting point that I need to consider further and that helps in the matter raised. It is that the Mysteries are still “operative” (for want of a better word at the moment) in schism but yet avail only condemnation for those participating in the schism. I am not yet convinced by this as against St Cyprian’s view but it is worth considering and it does help to understand some of the actions of the Church regarding schismatics. I fairly much already accept that there is a grey area in which this is true without refuting St Cyprian in principle.
Cathedraunitatis, even though economy may have taken on a particular form by modern Orthodox canonists that is not explicitly evident in earlier writings, I personally think that the substance of ideas regarding economy are taught by Christ when dealing with breaches of the Law such as to eat in need, and to save lives etc on the Sabbath. Perhaps these are not the same idea but it is in this regard that I am thinking of economy. But your point is taken and one cannot assume that Sts Cyprian or Basil were thinking in these terms in direct application to the issue at hand. I agree, on reflection, that the issue between St Stephen and St Cyprian involves more than how Bishops apply the rules. I suppose that the difference in application was so varied that it presupposes either extreme negligence, unlikely, or a different understanding of what the strict rule was and hence a dispute at this level between St Cyprian and St Stephen. I still think though that this does not mean that St Cyprian didn’t/couldn’t accept some level of economy that would have been made his teaching more compatible with St Basil and that his teaching is necessarily incompatible with some form of understanding of not repeating the form of baptism on entering the Church if previously bestowed by some groups of schismatics/heretics. Anyway, this is off topic so agreed enough said.
On the comments referenced in your post, I have difficulty with an Orthodox position such as expressed by Bishop Hilarion: “The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is, for the Orthodox, that of honour, not of jurisdiction.” I don’t think that Christ gives honour without function. The Bishop of Rome is not merely given honour as an end in itself but because the See of Rome has an important function to play in the life of the Church with associated jurisdictions and authority. The issue should be what the extent of this function is rather than dismissing it.
It seems to me that Pope Schenouda accepts some form of multiple paths to salvation and/or a weak sense of what it means to be a church and Christian perhaps under political duress, as noted above. Patriarch Teoctist seems to see the both the Roman Catholics, Orthodox and other “Christians” are in the Church that needs its divisions healing. He seems off the mark about Rome not recognising us as “a church” as distinct from “the Church”. I think that both seem more influenced by secular sensibilities about offending others and relativism, at least in public, than by rigourous Christian (Catholic) theology and ecclesiology. If we accept these as genuine Orthodox positions and also those of a more rigourous bent then those claiming to be Orthodox are indeed a confused and inconsistent group.
Diane, while Rome remained within the Church (supposing from a stricter Orthodox view that she may perhaps no longer be within the Church for the sake of argument) then of course one would be cutting themselves from the Church when breaking communion with Rome, which is the manifestation (as distinct from source) par excellence of the unity of the Church. This is another matter from whether Rome (as in the See of Old Rome specifically in its concrete form and location) will remain always this manifestation of unity and of course whether the Pope can be distinguished from the See. However, this issue is off topic.
By what theology does Rome justify stating that Orthodox have valid Sacraments and are true and particular Churches and at the same time see them as being deficient in anything? What deficiency is there in complete unity with Christ?
Precisely my problem. Joe
Joe –
I agree that Father Patrick’s question is a very good one. I think I might know the beginning of an answer, but I’d like to hear some responses from our Catholic contributors first.
#25: Awww, Greg, cut me some slack. I did say it was my quick lunch-hour/take-it-from-whence-it-comes response. 😉
But, in a nutshell, IMHO, it’s the same answer Pope Benedict himself gave: The chief “deficiency” lies in Orthodoxy’s rejection of the divinely instituted office of the papacy. Because the Petrine ministry is instituted and willed by Christ, and because it is integral to the Church, it cannot be rejected without some consequent lessening of the “fullness of the Faith.”
If this strikes you as simplistic or off-base, all I can say is: It is Pope Benedict’s answer as well, from what I can see. And it’s the best I can do. I don’t think there’s some abstruse, complicated answer. I think the answer is simple. The papacy is of the esse of the Church. To reject it is to reject something integral and essential, something instituted and willed by Christ. This is a “deficiency” in the sense that it is schismatical…that is, it separates one from the bond of fraternal charity and unity.
Because it is schismatical, not heretical, it does not in itself impair the validity of Orders and Sacraments. IOW, we are talking about the age-old Catholic distinction between schism and heresy.
As I said, that’s the best I can do.
God bless,
Diane
Dianne, well of course Orthodox reject that into which the modern Papacy has evolved, as we see the modern Papacy has having evolved into something that has brought deficiency to the West. The recent Summorum Pontificum is an attempt by this Pope to address mistakes imposed on the West by an earlier Pope, while still leaving the door open for future Popes to summarily make liturgical impositions yet again. Such power is unchecked, and has no basis in the “esse” of the Church nor its origin in Christ. And, it would be yet one more innovation for the West to claim that the Papacy and the Petrine office are one and the same.
Re: #35
Actually, Stephen, I do have a lot of sympathy for this argument. Alcuin Reid, in his very important study The Organic Development of the Liturgy, makes the argument that Popes previous to the 20th century typically had a very “hands-off” approach to the Liturgy. Popes simply did not see it as their job to micro-manage the liturgical life of the Church. When they did make “reforms” they were very minor in nature, and in keeping with what Reid defines as the principle of “organic development.” Reid, an orthodox Roman Catholic, who does not dissent from the Church’s dogmatic teachings about the nature of the Papacy, has (I think) some very valid complaints about what he argues is a misuse of papal authority (that’s why, of course, this current Pope is attempting in whatever way he can to clean up some of these mistakes). So, I agree with your argument to a great extent, but I also fail to see how your next point follows logically or inevitably from this one …
So say you, along with other Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants. I, for one, am not convinced of this viewpoint, historically or theologically. And, of course, that’s the whole point of this blog: a place for Orthodox and Catholics to hash this issue out, intelligently and charitably.
as we see the modern Papacy has having evolved into something that has brought deficiency to the West.
“As we see”? You speak as if this is an unassailable truism. But in fact it is opinion, nothing more, and debatable opinion at that. As our gracious host puts it, “so say you”…but that does not necessarily make it true. 🙂
Re the development of liturgy: Liturgical development is not unknown in the East, as Dix’s masterful work, The Shape of the Liturgy, shows. Liturgy is not part of the Depositum Fidei; it is not cast in concrete. It can and does change.
Finally, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Pope Benedict was “fixing” the “mistakes” of his predecessors. The Novus Ordo, which nourishes me every week, remains the ordinary form of the liturgy for the Latin Rite. Most Catholics will not start rushing off to Tridentine Latin Masses. All Pope Benedict did was to widen the scope of the Indult issued by Pope John Paul II some years ago.
It helps to get these small facts straight. 🙂
God bless,
Diane
Thanks for the article Greg.
Nothing of it. Given the copious quantities of good material you have given me to read, I am simply tickled that I was able to return the favor for once.
It is that the Mysteries are still “operative” (for want of a better word at the moment) in schism but yet avail only condemnation for those participating in the schism.
As Fr Florovsky points out, this is exactly St Augustine’s position and I would like to say that it is also the position of the Catholic Church, at least since Florence. Of course, I know that there will be howls of protest from many quarters that such is quite definitely not the Catholic position, but as I said, I think that the Council at Florence tells against these voices. If so, then that at least makes sense of what it means to say that the Orthodox faithful gathered around their Orthodox bishops in celebration of the Holy Mysteries are true particular Churches while at the same time holding that said Churches are “deficient” for their lack of communion with the Roman See. Of course, the full force of this explanation is quite a bit harsher than many of my fellow Catholics will allow, so I expect that the explanation I am proferring will not go uncontested by others on the Catholic side, but it is at least something to consider as a possible interpretation which makes sense of the CDF document.
CU- Ultimately, we shall all know all trees by their fruits. I find it personally unnessary mental gymnastics to parse the differences between the correct use of God-given authority and the validity of such authority. Way too much hair-splitting, but I know it’s important for Catholics so as to be able to deliniate the difference between the potential usage and actual usage of the whole infallible and ex-cathedra thing.
It’s a power trip. When your beliefs are pretty much 100% discernable just by showing up to the communal prayer services (as is the case with the Orthodox), you just don’t need to develop a formal, HEAVY reliance on a Magisterium; when a good chunk of your beliefs are conveyed extra-liturgically (as is the case in West), you create a market for “specialized consultants” to navigate the margin from where liturgy ends and the corpus of faith ends, developing ultimately into the Papacy.
Hello all,
I’ve been reading this blog for a while and been a bit cowed by the erudition and insight of so many who contribute, so haven’t yet braved offering a comment myself, but I guess now I’ll wade in… Also am not very blogosphere-savvy and am unsure of the protocol, for example whether it’s weird or expected to say anything about oneself by way of introduction or leave it a mystery. I do at least want to say hello to Barnabas though, if you’re reading this, Barnabas. Remember me from seminary? At that time I was in one of the small “continuing” Anglican communions but have entered the Orthodox Church since, in the Antiochian jurisdiction. I’ve appreciated reading your comments and hope things are well with you!
As I’ve been reading the discussion about “deficiencies” and “defects” in the wake of the CDF document, a text of Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio, section 4 (maybe someone else has already mentioned this and I missed it?) came to mind, where it makes the rather vulnerable statement that “the divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects.”
I also was reminded, in connection with this, of a comment that Paul Evdokimov, the Orthodox theologian and Russian émigré to France who was one of the observers at Vatican II, made about the way that many of the Catholic bishops at the conference regarded the input offered by him and other Orthodox in attendance and in conversation with the Catholic bishops as the proceedings unfolded. “How many times,” Evdokimov wrote in “An Orthodox Look at Vatican II,” in Diakonia vol. I (1966), “one heard these simple and moving words: ‘Help us,’ for, without an agreement from the Orient, without its complementary contribution, no purely Occidental solution would ever attain its desired fullness.”
If the main thing that gets driven home to Christians East and West from the recent CDF statement is the sober reminder that things are truly not okay as they are, i.e. with Catholics and Orthodox still divided from one another, then it seems this is all to the good, and perhaps the relatively positive reactions of Met Kirill and Bp Hilarion have something to do with the statement’s candor in this vein. I hope so. But if, as also seems possible, the main thing that gets driven home is that Catholics are to feel they can do just as well without Orthodox – a stance that historically has always seemed to engender a response in kind from the East – then this would be unfortunate and perhaps is at least partly what explains the alarm of some like Pat. Teoctist.
#39: Stephen, when I read posts like this, I do not know what to say.
All “Magisterium” means is Teaching Authority. Do you really believe that Christ did not give His Church a Teaching Authority?
He told the Apostles: “Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…and teach them everything I have commanded you.” How can the Church possibly do this without a divinely given Teaching Authority?
The Magisterium did not arise from some historical contingency. It was founded by Christ. “The Bible tells me so.”
Will: Welcome from this lowly contributor! Your articulate, irenic comment is most helpful, and I trust that it will elicit some good responses. 🙂
Diane
Memory eternal to His Beatitude, Patriarch Teoctist of Romania, who passed to his eternal reward yesterday.
When your beliefs are pretty much 100% discernable just by showing up to the communal prayer services (as is the case with the Orthodox)….
Stephen, forgive me, but couldn’t any Christian group claim this? Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you…but you seem to be saying that just showing up for Divine Liturgy is in itself a full and sufficient statement of faith. Well, what group wouldn’t claim this? Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Lutherans…they’d all say the same. “Lex orandi lex credendi” is inadequate (albeit useful) precisely because you can have all kinds of different confessional beliefs expressed in various church services / liturgies…but there’s still no definitive way of knowing which beliefs-expressed-in-liturgy are true and which aren’t.
But if, as also seems possible, the main thing that gets driven home is that Catholics are to feel they can do just as well without Orthodox – a stance that historically has always seemed to engender a response in kind from the East – then this would be unfortunate…
If Catholics were to claim that such is the sense that they get from the document in question then I think we would have to conclude that those Catholics had not, in fact, actually read the document. The document is at pains to make clear that we are not doing just fine without the Orthodox. As the response to question 4 explicitly makes clear
This citation finishes with a reference to the earlier CDF document Communionis Notio (on the idea of the Church as communion).
When your beliefs are pretty much 100% discernable just by showing up to the communal prayer services (as is the case with the Orthodox)….
Stephen, forgive me, but couldn’t any Christian group claim this?
I do not think so. If I understand Stephen, what he means is that just by sitting through the liturgy at an Orthodox parish you would know nearly everything that the Orthodox profess to believe. Such would not be the case in a Catholic liturgy. One could easily sit through Mass without hearing that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra or that sacraments function ex opere operato. On the other hand, I would submit that the minimalism implied in Stephen’s claim is not universally admitted by all of his fellow Orthodox.
Greg,
I have been considering St Augustine’s position and I am not happy with it for the following reasons.
The Mysteries (Sacraments) are the concrete manifestations of Christ. He it is Who performs the Mystery and through this unites man to Himself. Where the Mystery is He is. Where He is in Mystery the Church is. Thus valid Mysteries make present Christ and the Church. The Mysteries are in the Church and the Church in the Mysteries.
Schisms and heresies separate one from Christ and the Church and hence also the Mysteries. Where the Mysteries are there the Church is and where the Church is there are the Mysteries. Christ is not present in schismatic or heretical groups, I think that this defines these groups as being such, so there are no Mysteries in them because He is not there to perform the Mysteries. There is only the empty form(rite) of the Mystery unable to be transformed by the Spirit into its Mystical reality because of the schism or heresy.
To say that the Mysteries are valid in schism or heresy means that these groups are still in the Church and not separated from Her. This is the case for many moral sinners but in the case of schism and heresy; the Fathers consider these groups to be apart from the Church, if I am not mistaken.
Initially a schism or heresy may not automatically separate one from the Church but if unrepentant it will not be long before this is the case. It is Christ who makes the call of separation (He it is who separates the group by no longer uniting with them) which is manifest in the decisions of councils who make the ruling concerning the group. The canonical structure of the Church is the testimony to God’s decision on the matter, so it is in keeping with the reality of the condition of the schismatic/heretical group. (There may be exceptions to this, as it appears in all things, but the exceptions do not define the rule.)
So, if the Mysteries are only in the Church then there are not valid Mysteries elsewhere. If such Mysteries are true then the local Church is the Church and united with Christ and deficient in nothing. It does not make any sense to talk of a true and particular Church in schism and defincient. The Mysteries are for the benefit of any soul receiving them worthily without schism or heresy being an issue (at least not a group issue) because such a group would not have valid Mysteries to condemn a soul for this reason.
I accept Fr Florovsky’s comment, though, that one must not be too hasty in defining a schism or heresy or that such groups are instantly separated from Christ but rather once confirmed in their actions in refusal of any repentance or canonically decided by an appropriate council in Christ.
Regarding the Canons these Canons of the Apostles (at least in name and as recognised in such name by later Councils) make things fairly clear. I understand in this context that the later Canons deviating from this strict rule were providing exceptions for some good reason.
I have had a look through the other Canons regarding “rebaptism” of converts and for some heresies baptism is required and others it is not; for some chrism is needed others not. There is no further definition of what constitutes acceptable baptism but there is evidence that changing the form to one immersion or the names of the Trinity are a problem.
Overall this does not seem to be consistent with St Augustine that all validly baptised in a schism or heresy have valid baptisms but more in line with St Cyprian, with exceptions as I noted earlier. The form of baptism is important, in keeping with St Nicodemos rather than the any baptism but this can also be in keeping with St Augustine also. The Apostolic Canons do seem to make clear that the schismatic/heretical baptism is not valid in itself.
Anyway, that is my reasoning at the moment.
Sorry, if this is going off topic Cathedraunitatis but it is interesting and I think helpful discussion.
Eternal memory to Patriarch Teoctist.
Dear Fr Patrick,
What you are offering is the standard argument against the Augustinian position. It is a fine and worthy argument with a lot of adherents. As it happens, I find Augustine’s logic more compelling, but you are certainly not alone in finding his argument insufficient.
Meanwhile, there are canons and then there are canons. You mention the Apostolic Canons. Fair enough. On the other hand, the Council of Nicea holds (canon 8.) that “if [the Cathars] come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy.” I suppose it is possible to read this as meaning “those who were ordained to the clergy before they went into the Cathars’ schism,” but the plain (and far more likely) sense is simply that those who were ordained to the clergy while outside of the Church are to be regarded as real deacons, priests and bishops. In other words, there are canons which suggest that the sacraments are acceptably administered outside of the Church. This does not square neatly with St Cyprian’s view of things and it is a difficulty (if not quite insuperable) which St Augustine’s view does not suffer.
B.C. Butler’s book, The Idea of the Church, thoroughly canvasses this question. Weird coincidence: Just this morning, before work, I was reading the part about reception of the “Cathars” (Novationists?).
Greg,
It is reassuring that I am stating the standard argument, although my apologies for restating the same thing that you have heard many times. I do obviously find it compelling rather than St Augustine’s argument.
From a brief read of St Augustine that you provided, I am not convinced by his argument regarding the sacrament of baptism remaining as well as the sacrament of conferring baptisms. While I agree that the same logic must be applied to the baptism as well as the Priesthood, I think that he neglects to consider that a baptised person leaving the Church is separated from Christ and, although the baptism remain as given, the person no-longer remains in Christ, which was the purpose/substance of the baptism. Also, a Priest retains his ordination but he no-longer manifests Christ in this priesthood because he is separated from Him. Thus, he can only perform the outward form of the Mysteries and these fail to be true/valid because they are only such when Christ confers it in/through the Priest in synergy with him.
I agree that the Canonical situation is not as tidy or easy as St Cyprian’s view would suggest, although the Canons that I mentioned support him very well. Also, I don’t think that these Canons fit with St Augustine’s view because they assume the baptism is invalid outside the Church. How do you square these Canons with St Augustine? I think that other Canonical exceptions, seen as founded on St Cyprian’s doctrine, are quite in keeping with him and practically necessary without having to assume the validity of the Mysteries outside the Church.
How do you overcome the apparent contradiction that I raise that the Mysteries unite one to Christ in Christ and yet heretics/schismatics are apart from Christ? How is one united to Christ by Christ when He is not present (not in the sense of His omnipresence)? Is there another theology of the Mysteries or are heretics and schismatics not separate from Christ? There seems to be a different understanding of the Mysteries. St Augustine can accept being partially united with the Church whereas I am arguing more to say it is all or nothing, at least in the Mysteries, because Christ is not given in part. I consider that baptism is not just a grace given to man, nor is ordination, but the manifestation/realisation of Christ in man and man in Christ with an irreversible, unrepeatable change in man that remains even when separated from Christ by sin, schism or heresy.
Greg, exactly, and the ratio decreases the more one goes through the historical development of churches in the west. I call it the Liturgical Footprint Ratio. So, if lex orandi divided by lex credendi = 1 for the Orthodox, maybe .75 for Catholics, .60 for Anglicans, .50 for Lutherans, everyone else is under .30.
A lower score means more room for extra-liturgical interpretation, ultimately resulting in complete personal opinion which is shared with nobody else in space or time, or a 0 liturgical footprint.
Dianne, nowhere did I write the words you attribute to me, so I’m not sure what to say next in response, other than to re-read my post.
Stephen: Where do you come up with your “Liturgical Footprint Ratio”? By what authority do you assign only 75% to Catholics? How do your assertions differ from the personal opinions you rightly decry?
Diane: If the corpus of RC belief is the denominator, and the regular prayer communal prayer life of its adherents is the numerator, than the LFR says 75% of what Catholics believe can be discovered by listening and understanding those prayers. Do you think its more or less?
While I agree that the same logic must be applied to the baptism as well as the Priesthood, I think that he neglects to consider that a baptised person leaving the Church is separated from Christ and, although the baptism remain as given, the person no-longer remains in Christ, which was the purpose/substance of the baptism. Also, a Priest retains his ordination but he no-longer manifests Christ in this priesthood because he is separated from Him. Thus, he can only perform the outward form of the Mysteries and these fail to be true/valid because they are only such when Christ confers it in/through the Priest in synergy with him.
To be very fair, dear Fr Patrick, I think that you and St Cyprian are talking past St Augustine, and he is talking past you two. You two are treating the question as if it were entirely open (that is, as if it were not governed by some sort of precedent of practice) and trying to reason your way from a few axioms (drawn from the Bible and Greek dialectic about “the one” and “the many”) to an answer about whether to baptize (or ordain, offer first-communion, etc) converts from schismatic and heretical denominations who were already baptized (ordained, etc) in those denominations. Augustine, meanwhile, is starting from a received practise and attempting to contrive a logical explanation for why it is that the Church does what She has been doing up to the point when Augustine took up the question.
As such, while I would hardly wish to take issue with the fine and thorough line of logic which you employ in order to reach the end which you reach, it seems to me that your wholly unassailable ratiocination suffers from the fact that it arrives at a conclusion at odds with that which the Church actually does. The citation from the Canons of the Apostles, I suppose, helps to alleviate that difficulty a little, but only a very little. As I mentioned above, the tact taken by the Canons of the Apostles at odds with that taken by the Canons of Nicea. If we are forced to choose between the two, as it seems that we are, I dare say that the canons of an ecumenical council trump the alternative. Meanwhile, I agree with you that the Canons of the Apostles which you cited do not square easily with St Augustine’s position, although for the reason just outlined, I am not sure that this is a serious defect in Augustine’s argument.
How do you overcome the apparent contradiction that I raise that the Mysteries unite one to Christ in Christ and yet heretics/schismatics are apart from Christ?
I am not sure that I do overcome it. I am content to allow that this is a problem, but it seems less of a problem to me than the discrepancies entailed by the alternatives. I guess that if I am forced to offer some resolution, I would argue that one could hold that heretics are united to Christ in the same sense that the souls in Hell are experiencing Christ’s love (and it is painful to them). That is to say, the union of the heretics with Christ is no more profit to them than Uzzah’s contact with the Holy One of Isræl was a profit to him (2Sam 6:6). This is all just hand-waving, however. In reality, I am content with Augustine’s explanation because it makes sense in light of the Church’s actual practise, and if this does not square neatly with St Cyprian’s more abstract thinking, then I am mostly inclined to say “more’s the pity for the abstract thinker.”
Where do you come up with your “Liturgical Footprint Ratio”? By what authority do you assign only 75% to Catholics?
I gather that Stephen fancies that he has tallied up all the beliefs professed (or at least formally professed) by various Christian denominations and then tallied up all the beliefs mentioned in each denomination’s worship and divided the former number by the latter. I am as skeptical as you are about the accuracy of these tallies, but I dare say that neither of us cares to take the time necessary to demonstrate that his counts are inaccurate. For my part, I am content with a rebuttal something along the lines of “whatever…” accompanied by a dismissive roll of the eyes.
That said, I think that Stephen is on fairly safe ground in saying that a higher percentage of Orthodox professed beliefs are found in the liturgy of St John Chrysostom than Catholic beliefs are found in the Novus Ordo Missæ.
Sigh … this is not the first time conversation on this blog has been diverted into this little tendentious, perpheral point about “lex orandi, lex credendi.” Allow me to make the final comment on this topic.
The notion that Orthodox find what they believe exclusively in the Liturgy (and from no other source) is, in my opinion and in my experience as an Orthodox Christian, ridiculous. I can’t believe that I even have to write a refutation of such a point, since actual experience proves it to be an empty claim. It is an extreme distortion of the concept of “Lex orandi, lex credendi” (which has always been axiomatic in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism). This patristic dictum has never meant, in East or West, that the only valid place to find theology is in the Liturgy. This is merely a knee-jerk overreaction to Latin scholasticism as viewed through the negative lenses of modern Orthodox theologians.
The last time I checked, Orthodox theologians do exist, they write books about Orthodox theology, and the Orthodox Church does actually run seminaries in which the Faith is taught academically as well as experienced in divine worship. The Fathers of the Church wrote volume upon volume of theological treatises and commentaries in order to more fully and precisely proclaim the Faith. Councils have had to devise precise language and statements in order to exclude heretical teachings (and only much later were a few of these conciliar statements, such as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, made a part of the liturgical life of the Church).
How do you overcome the apparent contradiction that I raise that the Mysteries unite one to Christ in Christ and yet heretics/schismatics are apart from Christ?
“It’s a mystery.” — Sister Dismas, second grade, Saint William’s School. (Can’t get much more apophatic than those old nuns! :))
Greg,
To shift and develop my thinking in consideration of your comments about the practice of the Church, I think there is another line that can be taken encompassing both the theory and practice. I sure that you may be familiar with the work on re-baptism attributed to someone it is believed to counter St Cyrian’s position. The position of this author is more in keeping with both the ancient practice of the Church, to which you and this author rightly refer, and to the theology of Church that sees the Holy Spirit in the Church and that a Mystery/Sacrament outside the Church is not valid (i.e. not uniting one to Christ, although valid in form) while it remains outside.
Here is a quote illustrating the point:
The author is understanding baptism to be in water and in Spirit and that without the Spirit, Who is only in the Church, the baptism is not sufficient in itself, even though it is accepted by the Church as having been performed when the person converts and is baptised in the Holy Spirit (Chrismated/Confirmed). This follows the Canon of Nicea very well and I believe St Nicodemos develops the same line of thinking with “economy”.
I think this argument fits the practice of the Church without raising the problems that I mentioned with Saint Augustine.
Having said that, I agree that a strict application of St Cyprian is not the universal practice of the Church and I think that applying St Cyprian strictly would cause many more problems that it solves. However, I also see that not very baptism outside the Church is accepted as such and by default, in the Canon of Nicea and the Apostolic Canon, converts from heresy, unless the heresy is excepted by name, are required to be baptised in the Church. Both practices seem to be followed at some stage in the Church. The same, I believe, can be said for ordination.
So, I think that the practice of the Church can be adequately understood in a manner that does not see the Mystery as being valid as such outside the Church, even though the invocation of the baptism is maintained as good without need of repetition. Thus, St Augustine’s argument is not the only option that is consistent with Church practice and yet maintains the point that schismatics and heretics cannot be thought of as true and particular churches with valid Mysteries/Sacraments.
I am finding this discussion useful in developing thinking. Although, I have argued a theoretical point, I am always aware of the need to consider Church practice and in doing so one can develop an even stronger theology. I try to accept every practice recorded as being legitimate without condemning any as being wrong but I also believe that at times some Bishops do things that are not in accordance with the rule of the Church and these actions should not be taken as evidence for allowable practices, although I would only take this stance in evidence of other opinions from other Fathers making the same point and where it is contrary to both general practice and theory.
Dear Fr Patrick,
I guess I am not clear as to how the approach you are describing differs in substance from St Augustine’s. Could you perhaps expand a bit on what you see as the difference?
The document is at pains to make clear that we are not doing just fine without the Orthodox…
Greg,
You’re right to point out the passage you cite from the recent CDF statement. I find myself asking, still, how it is that those Churches — namely the Orthodox ones — which are said to be lacking one of the internal constitutive principles of being a particular Church are also said (as U.R. states) to be truly Churches through which, when the eucharist is celebrated in them, the Church of God is built up…but I’ll give more thought to how these assertions mesh.
Also and on a different note, and here I’m taking up an aspect of the discussion between Greg and Fr Patrick, what you suggest, Greg, in your reference to 2 Sam 6:6, where you surmise that “the union of the heretics with Christ is no more profit to them than Uzzah’s contact with the Holy One of Isræl was a profit to him,” seems to be on the mark; certainly it is very much in line with the upshot of the pre-communion prayer of St John Chrysostom in which Orthodox faithful pray that their partaking of the holy mysteries of Christ will be neither to their judgment nor to their condemnation. Also along the same lines there is Luke 13:26, “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence…” which again seems to suggest that Christ’s truly being present does not, in itself, rule out a person’s being at odds with Christ, outside of Christ. Florovsky speaks about the divine gift as being not salvific except where it meets with the human response of love. For all of these reasons, and following Florovsky’s own reading, it seems to me that Augustine’s sacramental theology actually better preserves the o/Orthodox emphasis on human freedom than Cyprian’s does.
Dear Will: I’d like to extend a belated welcome to you. I have enjoyed your comments so far!
I sure that you may be familiar with the work…
As rightly you should be. I think that it is always safe to profess certainty that someone might have read a given book. At least so long as that someone is not illiterate, at any rate.
;p
Greg,
St Augustine (On Baptism, Against the Donatists: Book 1, Chapter 11).
“And as the baptized person, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not thereby lose the sacrament of baptism, so also he who is ordained, if he depart from the unity of the Church, does not lose the sacrament of conferring baptism.”
“Further, since we say that he has been baptized in Christ, we confess that he has put on Christ; and if we confess this, we confess that he is regenerate.”
Fr Florovsky
“The holy and sanctifying Spirit still breathes in the sects, but in the stubbornness and powerlessness of schism healing is not accomplished…. The sacramental rite cannot be only a rite, empty but innocent. The sacrament is accomplished in reality.”
The author (Anonymous Treatise on Re-Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Vol 5):
“Because outside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism. And for that reason, they who repent and are amended by the doctrine of the truth, and by their own faith, which subsequently has been
improved by the purification of their heart, ought to be aided only by spiritual baptism, that is, by the imposition of the bishop’s hands, and by the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, the perfect seal of faith has been rightly accustomed to be given in this manner and on this principle in the Church. So that the invocation of the name of Jesus, which cannot be
done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem by us; which assuredly is not fitting; although such an invocation, if none of those things of which we have spoken should follow it, may fail and be deprived of the effect of salvation.”
I see that the difference is that St Augustine sees that the schismatic/heretical baptism actually regenerates the baptised. The baptism is complete and then the person is judged for being in schism and so the baptism condemns because of being in schism. The author does not address this point specifically but the overall gist of his position seems to be that the baptism is incomplete without the baptism of the Spirit, Who is only in the Church. He holds that the invocation of the name of Jesus (i.e. the words of the Rite in the name of Christ) holds a certain power because of the name, such as those outside the Church casting out demons because of this name. This invocation should not be repeated because of its venerable nature but not necessarily that it conferred a particular grace, regeneration or putting on of Christ.
The author’s solution explains the practice of the Church and yet maintains that the Spirit is only in the Church, which removes the problem I have with St Augustine’s position that Christ can be Mystically outside the Church, and thus the Holy Spirit, or schismatics/heretics are still in the Church and treated only as other sinners.
To add more fuel to the discussion, St Basil the Great talks of economy referring to ancient custom and is clear about the presence of the Spirit, or rather lack of it, in heresy:
“…but those who seceded from the Church had not the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them; for the impartation thereof ceased with the interruption of the service. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gracious gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became laymen, and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain anyone, nor could they impart the grace of the Spirit to others, after they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as baptized by laymen, and that when they came to join the Church they should have to be repurified by the true baptism as prescribed by the Church. Inasmuch, however, as it has seemed best to some of those in the regions of Asia, for the sake of extraordinary concession (or “economy”) to the many, to accept their baptism, let it be accepted. ”
and:
“…I deem, therefore, that since there is nothing definitely prescribed as regards them, it was fitting that we should set their baptism aside, and if any of them appears to have left them, he shall be baptized upon joining the Church. If, however, this is to become an obstacle in the general economy (of the Church), we must again adopt the custom and follow the Fathers who economically regulated the affairs of our Church. For I am inclined to suspect that we may by the severity of the proposition actually prevent men from being saved because of their being too indolent in regard to baptism. But if they keep our baptism, let this not deter us. For we are not obliged to return thanks to them, but to serve the Canons with exactitude. But let it be formally stated with every reason that those who join on top of their baptism must at all events be anointed by the faithful, that is to say, and thus be admitted to the Mysteries.”
Will,
I believe the Fathers draw a distinction between sinners who come to the Church to receive the Mysteries and heretics and schismatics that separate themselves from the Church and establish their own altars and mysteries separate from those of the Church.
The former are at odds with Christ in their sins and partake of the Mysteries in the Church unworthily to their condemnation. This I believe is a different matter for the latter who are no longer in the Church, whether sinners or otherwise righteous, they have ceased to participate in the Mystical life of the Church regardless of their otherwise worthiness to receive the Mysteries. Treating the latter as the former, as it seems that St Augustine tends to do, is I believe contrary to the general consensus of the Fathers that heretics and schismatics are no longer in the Church and their altars and mysteries are not those of the Church. Unlike those excommunicated, who are also separate from the Church, heretics and schismatics continue to perform rites, which they have no right or grace to do and claim that these are the Mysteries of the Church. They are both excommunicate and sinning against the Spirit by not recognising the true Church. At least an excommunicated sinner, even if unrepentant, acknowledges the Church from which he is excommunicate.
I think it is God’s mercy to remove the Holy Spirit from those separated from the Church to lessen the condemnation of these people, although the invocation of His name may remain as it is even in the mouth of sinners; it has nevertheless been invoked and He cannot prevent that unless He is to close the mouths of sinners. This does not infringe or limit the fact that the divine gift is not salvific except where it meets the human response of love.
[…] and particular churches? Having a discussion on another blog I am interested in getting some feedback here on the issues […]
Greg,
I am afraid that I have misquoted St Augustine and he does not necessarily see those baptised outside the Church as being regenerate. This was an argument of the Donatist’s to refute St Augustine. St Augustine replies that baptism in heresy/schism does not grant remission of sins.
In that case, Fr Patrick, could you clarify please whether you still think that the position which you take in #58 is substantially different from the position taken by St Augustine. Even in light of your #63 I am still not quite clear as to how you purport to differ from him, especially given that I think that you are using the word “valid” differently than most of us partisans of Augustine do.
Unlike those excommunicated, who are also separate from the Church, heretics and schismatics continue to perform rites, which they have no right or grace to do and claim that these are the Mysteries of the Church. They are both excommunicate and sinning against the Spirit by not recognising the true Church….
Fr Patrick,
Your various remarks about the diff btn those who receive unworthily and those who are altogether in schism bear further attention / reflection. A couple of questions and thoughts, though, occur to me at this point. If I’m remembering correctly, I think in one of your previous posts you acknowledged the difficulty of discerning precisely when a community is in schism, i.e. outside the church in a definitive way. If you do — as I do — then this seems no small matter. For example, what does one say about the spiritual state of R.O.C.O.R. on May 16 of this year, in contrast to its spiritual state on May 17? Did the H.S. enter in only on the 17th? Obviously not. The H.S. was involved already in leading R.O.C.O.R. and the Moscow Patriarchate to reunite. Once they did, this casts a new retroactive light, too, it seems to me, on what really was going on within R.O.C.O.R. during all those years of separation from canonical Orthodoxy. There are better examples of the healing of a division than this one, but since it’s so fresh on many of our minds, I offer it as an illustration — an illustration of why, among other things, it seems that it is important to make a more careful distinction between heretics and schismatics than your post #63 seemed to do.
St Basil I think is more complicated than your reading would suggest. In one of the letters you quote (letter 188), there is that earlier passage, too, where he says quite a different thing about schismatics — certain ones, not all — going so far as to say that they are actually still in the Church! And Basil does take care to differentiate between schismatics and heretics, and even to offer further calibrations within these categories.
There are times — like in the Arsenite schism within the patriarchate of C’ple — when it doesn’t seem so evident at all that one or the other party necessarily fell away from the truth, when the division between the two opened up, especially if, later on, it is healed….healed, moreover, without one or the other side being required to undergo rebaptism, reordination, etc
None of this is to say there isn’t such a thing as rejection of Christ, rejection of the Church. But I’m not so sure that the “consensus of the Fathers” was that every visible or canonical rupture involved such a rejection.
In the main, is it not most accurate to say that the Church is most comfortable in dealing with heretics as to where the Spirit is NOT with some precision? Otherwise, why use the formulation of “anathema sit”? It’s a very cautious structure. “If any way says” or “If anyone denies”, all very anaphatic.
Greg,
The meaning of the word “valid” is something that I am wanting to flesh out in this discussion and to determine exactly what everyone means by this.
Personally, I accept the word used only to the extent to say whether a particular form of baptism is valid or not. I am unhappy with it being used to mean that the Mystery of Baptism, putting on Christ, (or any other Mystery) has been completed and thus the Mystery is fulfilled materially and spiritually in the Spirit. The author (as I have named him) can be read consistently with this but St Augustine is a different matter. Even though, St Augustine replied to one option in that those baptised in heresy/schism do not receive remission of sins, he, in the next reply, permits that such can happen but is immediately withdrawn afterwards. Thus it seems that he can accept a complete baptism in form and spirit among heretics/schismatics, although he would say that the baptism is nevertheless of the Church and so not of the heretics/schismatics as such (or “outside” the Church).
My objection, again if I am repeating myself, is that there cannot be a complete baptism in form and spirit, thus uniting one to Christ, outside the union of those in Christ and that the Christ acts through His concrete Priests to effect the Mysteries. If a “mystery” is not performed by a Priest of the Church then it is not performed by Christ and cannot be said to be performed by the Church. So, the Church cannot act in the Mysteries “outside” herself or invisibly in the acts of heretics or schismatics. Nevertheless, Christ (the Church) can accept the form of a Mystery from outside the Church as if it had been performed by Himself and fill it with its Spiritual content. I think this distinction is essential in reconciling the Church practice with the theoretically correct position of St Cyprian. St Augustine does not seem to make such a distinction, at least not explicitly, whereas I believe that St Basil does and the author can be read consistently with such. St Augustine can be read in such a manner in parts of his work but I sense with some of his comments that this is not the framework within which he is thinking. So, if Augustine can consistently be taken to mean valid in the same manner in which I would use it then he can be read in line with St Cyprian but if not then this is where I would have a problem, although I am interested to see what other meanings for valid there may be.
Will,
I have rather lumped together schisms and heresies for the sake of this discussion. I understand that well established schisms effectively become no different from heresies. Both cut one off from the Church and this is the issue here. Some schisms at an early stage or by their nature may not necessarily separate one from the Church. In the case of ROCOR, even though they were not in communion with Moscow and communion was severed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the reasons for these “separations” may not necessarily have been justified and also ROCOR maintained communion with the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem. This type of “schism” is hard to judge. For the purpose of the discussion I have ignored dealing with defining what is a schism or heresy but want to focus on assuming they have been cut off from the Church then how can the Mysteries and/or Spirit be with/within them.
[…] should also check out “Orthodox Reactions to the CDF Document” compiled by the writer at Cathedra Unitatis. This person, who prefers not to share his/her […]
This type of “schism” is hard to judge. For the purpose of the discussion I have ignored dealing with defining what is a schism or heresy but want to focus on assuming they have been cut off from the Church then how can the Mysteries and/or Spirit be with/within them.
Fr Patrick,
Florovsky’s view as I am sure you know is that while it is not quite accurate to say that the schismatic is still “in the Church,” it is still paradoxically true that the Church still is present in the schismatic, awaiting the moment when the heart of the schismatic will burn again with the flame of desire for catholic unity. It seems possible, though, not only for an individual but for a parish or diocese, that this process of igniting the flame of passion for catholicity can and does begin before the moment at which visible unity is achieved. So Fr Alexander Schmemann was able to say (it’s somewhere in his journals) about the evangelics led by Gilquist et al in the early period of their investigation into Orthodoxy, “They’re Orthodox only they don’t know it yet,” or something very close to that. What he meant was that they were, and had been, heading that way; it was a sort of foregone conclusion to him that they would HAVE to end up in the Orthodox Church, not because of what they lacked but because of what already was clear to him in their way of looking at the world and at the life in Christ. In all of this, I guess I am in agreement with Augustine’s fundamental point in De Baptismo that there can be something Catholic outside the Catholic Church. Or to paraphrase, there can be something Orthodox outside the Orthodox Church. This isn’t to say it isn’t, so to speak, “proper to Orthodoxy,” i.e. inherently BELONGS to the Church even if it isn’t yet united fully with the Church. But it is to say that elements of truth exist in the schismatic community, and I’m not sure then how you can say that something true is true in any sense at all if it is totally apart from the H.S.
Will,
When I am speaking of the presence of the Spirit outside the Church, I am only doing so to the extent that He is present in the Mysteries and transforming them into their true reality of uniting one to Christ. This is not to exclude the Spirit working on men’s hearts outside the Church, that Christ is not to some extent to be found in every man who is the image of God and that there is not truth outside the Church. The issue is only regarding the nature of the Mysteries/Sacraments.
I agree that the Baptism used by heretics belongs to the Church as to all the other truths that they hold/practice. What I am arguing is that the Holy Spirit does not transform the actions performed in heretical/schismatic groups into the reality of Christ in these groups because they are apart from Christ. If these mysteries were transformed and fulfilled by the Spirit then these groups would be united to Christ in the Church and properly Churches. These groups would not be separate from the Church and heresy/schism would be just another personally accountable sin such as fornication/theft. This is not the understanding I receive from the Fathers including St Augustine. I don’t think that St Augustine’s solution, although he raises some good points and properly critiques a strict St Cyprian approach, properly addresses this issue as it is left with the difficulties discussed earlier.
Greg DeLassus said:
“That said, I think that Stephen is on fairly safe ground in saying that a higher percentage of Orthodox professed beliefs are found in the liturgy of St John Chrysostom than Catholic beliefs are found in the Novus Ordo Missæ.”
To which, as a Latin Rite Catholic I can only say: “Goodness gracious, I certainly hope so”. Not to say, of course, that the NO is less than fully catholic in it’s essence. But it presumes upon a knowledge of Catholic theology that most Catholic laymen simply do not possess. Ultimately, that’s just not good enough.
Moderator: Since I don’t want to alienate a new commenter by deleting his comment, this is the very last comment I’ll allow on this subject in this post.