Orthodox "Eucharistic Ecclesiology" Questions

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks, Cav,

Are there any other Orthodox Churches–such as the Serbs–who agree with the Greeks?

Are there other Orthodox Churches–like the Russians–who officially teach that the bread and wine DO become the Body and Blood in Catholic Masses?

I do not know if the Serbs or Russians agree with the Greeks or not. However, in theory, this teaching ought to be pan-orthodox, since the the pan-orthodox decision of the Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus declares in its 17th article that the mystery of the Eucharist can only be performed by a priest who has received priesthood from a canonical Orthodox bishop.

Also, is “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” the official ecclesiology of any of the Orthodox Churches?

I do not think so. It is an academic proposal to come up with a set of ecclesiological principles derived from a theological basis rather than from a canonical basis. Traditional objections to the papacy have always been canonical, such that Even at Florence, the Greek delegates and the Emperor insisted that they could only recognize the papacy as having a primacy in accordance with the canons, and without injuring the canonical rights of the Eastern Churches. The problem, of course is that traditional justifications of the papacy are based on theological claims, not canonical ones, so there is a sort of frustrating mismatch between the methodology used to prove the papacy and the methodology used to object to those proofs.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

I do not know if the Serbs or Russians agree with the Greeks or not. However, in theory, this teaching ought to be pan-orthodox, since the the pan-orthodox decision of the Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus declares in its 17th article that the mystery of the Eucharist can only be performed by a priest who has received priesthood from a canonical Orthodox bishop.

I do not think so. It is an academic proposal to come up with a set of ecclesiological principles derived from a theological basis rather than from a canonical basis. Traditional objections to the papacy have always been canonical, such that Even at Florence, the Greek delegates and the Emperor insisted that they could only recognize the papacy as having a primacy in accordance with the canons, and without injuring the canonical rights of the Eastern Churches. The problem, of course is that traditional justifications of the papacy are based on theological claims, not canonical ones, so there is a sort of frustrating mismatch between the methodology used to prove the papacy and the methodology used to object to those proofs.

Surely the theological and the canonical cannot be separated in this way. The canonical is certainly based on theology.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Surely the theological and the canonical cannot be separated in this way. The canonical is certainly based on theology.

Yes, it is, but the mindset of older arguments is mostly legal, e.g. the church decreed such and such boundaries and so-and-so has transgressed them. It provides plenty of proscriptive propositions about ecclesiology, but very few positive propositions about the nature of primacy, or the implicit theological reasoning which underlies the canons.

 

[patricius79]

I do not know if the Serbs or Russians agree with the Greeks or not. However, in theory, this teaching ought to be pan-orthodox, since the the pan-orthodox decision of the Synod of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus declares in its 17th article that the mystery of the Eucharist can only be performed by a priest who has received priesthood from a canonical Orthodox bishop.

I do not think so. It is an academic proposal to come up with a set of ecclesiological principles derived from a theological basis rather than from a canonical basis. Traditional objections to the papacy have always been canonical, such that Even at Florence, the Greek delegates and the Emperor insisted that they could only recognize the papacy as having a primacy in accordance with the canons, and without injuring the canonical rights of the Eastern Churches. The problem, of course is that traditional justifications of the papacy are based on theological claims, not canonical ones, so there is a sort of frustrating mismatch between the methodology used to prove the papacy and the methodology used to object to those proofs.

Thanks Cav,

I’m trying to understand.

Could you explain what is the official ecclesiology of the Orthodox generally, or of any of the various Orthodox churches in particular?

Are you saying that the official ecclesiology of the Orthodox is to follow the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

Or is there more to it?

For example, one of the things I’m trying to understand is whether Orthodoxy believes in a universal ecclesiology or not.

As I understand it, Schemann and Afanassieff–as well as the article I read from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (“Papal Primacy” by Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis–reject the idea that a local Church is a “part” of a “whole”.

Thanks,

Pat

 

[Cavaradossi]

Thanks Cav,

I’m trying to understand.

Could you explain what is the official ecclesiology of the Orthodox generally, or of any of the various Orthodox churches in particular?

For example, one of the things I’m trying to understand is whether Orthodoxy believes in a universal ecclesiology or not.

As I understand it, Schemann and Afanassieff–as well as the article I read from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America (“Papal Primacy” by Rev. Emmanuel Clapsis–reject the idea that a local Church is a “part” of a “whole”.

Thanks,

Pat

Eucharistic Ecclesiology (and the accompanying rejection of Universal Ecclesiology) presently has the status of a common opinion in academia. I do not think, in general, that there have been any pan-orthodox synods which have made rulings on ecclesiology one way or another, so the question is still rather open.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Are you saying that the official ecclesiology of the Orthodox is to follow the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils?

Or is there more to it?

At present, there isn’t really much more to it in practice than following canon law and knowing how canon law is commonly applied. It’s worth keeping in mind how new the study of ecclesiology is. We don’t really get a clear presentation of Western (Roman Catholic in particular) ecclesiology until Lumen Gentium, and even then, there are still passages with famously disputed meanings. Western scholars even now continue to make contributions to the study of ecclesiology. In some sense our own understanding of ecclesiology could said to be similarly inchoate, though without the benefit of a concise synodally approved text like Lumen Gentium as a starting point.

 

[patricius79]

At present, there isn’t really much more to it in practice than following canon law and knowing how canon law is commonly applied. It’s worth keeping in mind how new the study of ecclesiology is. We don’t really get a clear presentation of Western (Roman Catholic in particular) ecclesiology until Lumen Gentium, and even then, there are still passages with famously disputed meanings. Western scholars even now continue to make contributions to the study of ecclesiology. In some sense our own understanding of ecclesiology could said to be similarly inchoate, though without the benefit of a concise synodally approved text like Lumen Gentium as a starting point.

Hi Cavaradossi,

Thank you,

I thought, however, that the Orthodox don’t believe in doctrinal development.

Also, following the canons would involve knowing which councils are Ecumenical. How can one know this without a clear ecclesiology?

In the book “the Primacy of Peter”, the EO scholar Afanassieff says that the Orthodox have no systematic doctrine of Church government, and that their doctrine of Ecumenical Councils is not enough to refute the Catholic doctrine of Papal Supremacy.

What do you think about that?

Also, I don’t know much about Church history, but my understanding is that the Catholic idea of Papal Supremacy, as well as the normative authority of Bishops, were clearly stated hundreds of years before Vatican II.

Thank you,

Pat