Eucharistic Ecclesiology

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mardukm

Guest
Dear all,

I have often heard from Eastern Christians that the Latin Church has only recently attuned itself to a Eucharistic conception of ecclesiology. Apparently, before this time, unity was based on the papacy instead of the Eucharist.

But I just recently read the Council of Trent teach this about the Eucharist:

In addition to his other purposes, our Savior left the Eucharist in his Church as a symbol of the unity and love which he desired to unity and unite all Christians.

That’s a pretty Eucharistic conception of ecclesiology at a time when the Pope within the orthodox Catholic Church was very powerful.

What is your understanding or perception of the Latin position on the basis of unity (to be answered through the poll)?

I would like to invite only Eastern and Oriental posters to join the poll.

I am interested in your personal view, not your Church’s.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
BTW, if you believe the Latins are only DISCOVERING, as opposed to recovering, the Eucharistic element, then you should choose the first option (i.e., “always has been papal”).

If you vote “Recovering the Eucharistic element,” when do you surmise the Latins lost it?

Thanks.
 
I don’t usually post on this forum, but this thread interests me. I voted that the Latin Church is “recovering” eucharistic ecclesiology. I believe that she lost this emphasis relatively early in the first millennium and that this led to a rather inflated view of the Papacy and its relationship to the Church. To be fair, however, even Orthodoxy lost sight of eucharistic ecclesiology until recently. Rome replaced eucharistic ecclesiology with a powerful Papacy, while we did the same except with the Patriarchate. I look forward to your thoughts on this, Marduk.

God bless,

Adam
 
I think that the Eucharist and papacy are two important elements, and are probably very high on the list, but I think that they are part of a whole. I would say that the Eucharist is probably top on the list. The papacy is important, but is not most important. The Pope of Rome is the visible head of the Church, but our true unity comes from Christ in Eucharist. Everything else flows from that. However, I don’t see this as an either-or kind of thing. I think that everything is together as a whole.

I think the problem, however, has been that in the past, the emphasis has been more on the papacy.
So if anything, the problems that have arisen are due to *emphasis *only. I think that the Latin Church has always recognized that the Eucharist is what gives the Church unity.
 
Universal ecclesiology and eucharistic ecclesiology have always gone hand in hand. It is certain modern Orthodox theologians who have abandoned universal ecclesiology for an exclusively eucharistic theology based almost completely on one line from an Epistle of St. Ignatius of Antioch.
 
I would tend to agree with DanMan.

Just like there are many elements that hold our physical bodies together, there are many elements that accomplish the unity of the Church.
 
The papal-based eccelsiology is one of several elements. The unity of the Eucharist, another. The Unity of the councils is the third major element.

The Holy Catholic Church is the unification of the local (eparchial/diocesan) churches in concelebrating the Euchaist, in following the guidance of the visible head of the Union (the Pope), and in participation in the councils of the church.

We, as Catholics, await the day our EO, OO, and Assyrian brethren realize that we do not exclude them, they merely exclude themselves from the fullness of the three fold unity with the church of the Triune God!
 
I think the basis for unity, at least within the earliest days of the Church, was the sacraments, specifically the eucharist, and beliefs, those of orthodoxy. That is not to say that the Church didn’t recognize the primacy of Rome, but that this was not the emphasis for many reasons (specifically that Christianity was illegal and issues were resolved more locally in councils). I believe that prior to the Schism, but especially afterwards, the papacy became the emphasis, at least in the west. This was also because the “West” was under the jurisdiction of the Pope, whereas the East was divided between the remaining five Patriachates. After the schism, this arrangement became the normal function, so the Pope had full control over the West. Therefore, the major function of unity within the Roman Church became its head, the Pope. The Eucharist, because it was shared within one communion under the Pope, became a secondary sign of unification after the Papacy. During the subsequent centuries when numerous reunions took place, communion began to return to its rightful place. Just my perspective…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
I think the Eucharistic and Papal Ecclesiologies go hand in hand. The Papacy is a way of knowing that all the other churches in communion with it are proclaiming that they swear to uphold orthodox belief. I do think today that the various Churches that make up the communion should be able to govern their own internal affairs with little regulation from Rome but Rome is necessary on issues of Faith and Morals as in that regard Rome is speaking as the Pope , and not as the “Patriarch” of the western church (even though he refuses to call himself as such).
 
Alexius said:
I think the basis for unity, at least within the earliest days of the Church, was the sacraments, specifically the eucharist, and beliefs, those of orthodoxy. That is not to say that the Church didn’t recognize the primacy of Rome, but that this was not the emphasis for many reasons (specifically that Christianity was illegal and issues were resolved more locally in councils). I believe that prior to the Schism, but especially afterwards, the papacy became the emphasis, at least in the west. This was also because the “West” was under the jurisdiction of the Pope, whereas the East was divided between the remaining five Patriachates. After the schism, this arrangement became the normal function, so the Pope had full control over the West. Therefore, the major function of unity within the Roman Church became its head, the Pope. The Eucharist, because it was shared within one communion under the Pope, became a secondary sign of unification after the Papacy. During the subsequent centuries when numerous reunions took place, communion began to return to its rightful place. Just my perspective…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
Click to expand...
Well said!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top