It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So, Apostolic succession and 'right doctrine' are the outward and visible marks of 'the Church'.But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
One way of reading this last is that it is saying that where, even though division seems to have occurred, it is found that Apostolicity and right doctrine are to be found, there too is the Church to be found. We have no doubts about these things in our Church, but see no need to suggest that however fractured the contacts have been over time, that we do not share the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith; yet this seems to be what some very intelligent EOs believe.Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles, — is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in error who handed on the tradition?
Any way, it may be that such a topic is a little rarefied for us, but I hope not, since it seems essential that we bear witness to our own Church being what it is - Holy Catholic and Apostolic - and have a way of describing its relationship with others who make the same claim.This general failure to question is a direct by product of the [Byzantine] ideology, which has managed to produce a powerful myth about itself that it does not need to be interrogated.
Comments
First of all, I am puzzled as to why you attribute (rather negatively) this type of ecclesiology to the "imperialist" EO Church alone, when it is one shared by many in the OO communion (including some of the posters on these fora).
As for the two quotes you posted, certainly they assert that Apostolic succession and correct belief are part of what constitutes the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
However, I cannot see any justification from these quotes to suggest that two independant communions, in obvious schism, constitute the same Catholic Church based purely on Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession.
St. Basil, for example, speaks of a loss of grace and a break in Apostolic succession where schism occurs. Thus a Bishop who separates himself from the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, even if he did so for entirely non-doctrinal reasons, is no longer a Bishop and his ordinations are invalid.
While I will not claim that this means all outside a particular communion are without grace or salvation - since I see the obvious problems this causes with respect to temporary schisms, saints from other communions, etc. - I think it does challenge your above assertion.
Ah, but I was not challenging the ecclesiology, simply its arrogation by one denomination, which goes on to deny that it can been as a denomination; that is where the imperial mindset may enter the equation.
In 'obvious schism', well, there have been many talks between the Churches which lead one to question the assumption that that need continue. If you look at the documentation at http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ you will see what I mean. If a Joint Commission containing EO and OO theologians and bishops can declare then the question of where the boundaries might be seems a live and relevant one.
When you say that is quite so; but it did not stop our bishops talking with your bishops, even though, taking the strict line of Basilian thought, we could simply have said that we did not recognise their ordination. That line of thought seems unhelpful if one is trying to have a discourse, and it is good that neither of our Churches took up such an unenlightened position.
If we get into the past, we shall find no end of things to disagree on; where our Christologies now diverge is quite unclear to many of us. If a Church is not defined primarily in terms of Orthodoxy and Apostolic succession, I should be interested to know how else one was to identify it. That EOs and OOs claim the same ecclesiology and same Apostolicity actually makes one wonder what else might be found in common - and why some shy away from such a discussion.
In Christ,
John
it did not stop our bishops talking with your bishops, even though, taking the strict line of Basilian thought, we could simply have said that we did not recognise their ordination. That line of thought seems unhelpful if one is trying to have a discourse, and it is good that neither of our Churches took up such an unenlightened position.
I suppose one must not fail to take into account the concept of economia when discussing these issues. That our respective bishops have maintained a dialogue along the lines that they have, need not be a rejection of Basilian thought or the idea that a real schism exists, but rather that there is no substantial reason for such a schism to have happened in the first place, given both churches faithful adherence to Apostolic Tradition.
To refer to St. Basil once more, when speaking on the reception of a certain group of schismatics (I forget which one) into the Church, he recommended baptism. But where such a means of reception would be a hindrance to their joining the Church, he said chrismation was acceptable. I assume this is under the assumption that the Church can impart her grace into the baptism of schismatics/heretics upon their reception into the Church.
Perhaps the union of the EO and OO communions can be seen in a similar manner. That by economia, a restoration of Eucharistic Communion (in which the unity of the Catholic Church is present in its fullest) alone, without the baptism/chrismation/re-ordination of the members of one communion into another, is sufficient, without having to adopt the infamous branch-theory?
As always, I am in your debt, both for the content and the tone of your discussion; it makes it a pleasure - thank you.
I don't know that I was going as far as unity - yet. I suspect we are a way off that. After all, given our ecclesiology the easy option is to do what we have done to each other for centuries; it is a gift of the Spirit that in many quarters we do not need to do that to each other.
That there was a rupture between us is so. But for a century and a half after Chalcedon numerous attempts were made to find a formula of reconciliation; some almost succeeded. Such discussions were abruptly ended by the Arab conquests in Egypt and Palestine - and for more than a thousand years, despite occasional attempts, conditions in which we could resume the old dialogue did not exist. Now they do, and the talks that have taken place have revealed how much remains to us in common, despite so many centuries of bitterness, isolation and oppression.
I don't know what it means that that is so. It seems to suggest that if we are both Apostolic and Orthodox in our worship and our faith, then our ecclesiology, which is often seen as a force for division, might not necessarily be so.
Once we talk of schismatics there is no end of what can can found to divide us. At Chalcedon forces other than the Holy Ghost were also at work. In the millennium and a half of oppression that followed, the Copts remained true to their Apostolic heritage and traditions; it is hard not to see the Spirit at work there. Equally, when the great disaster of 1453 struck the Greek Church, it too survived 600 years of oppression; it is hard not to see the Spirit at work there. When the Godless Communists persecuted the Russian Church with great cruelty for eighty years, it too managed to survive; could it have done that without the Spirit? I suspect not. Much has divided us - the Spirit unites if we let it.
How and in what circumstances further progress can be made, I do not pretend to know; but the sort of dialogue we are engaged in here can, perhaps, help in a tiny way. If we understand what it is the other really believes, we can work from knowledge, not prejudice. One of the things that surprised me was the number of EO people who told me that in becoming a member of the Coptic Church I was joining the 'Monophysites'. When challenged to support that view and to cite any Coptic thinker who had ever proclaimed Christ in One Nature, they retreated and said that was what they had been taught. I am sure they had been; but they had been taught error in that case.
I know from our discussions elsewhere that you, like many other Eastern Orthodox, do not espouse such a view, and I always appreciate the spirit in which you communicate your thoughts - as well as the thoughts themselves.
Let us see if others find themselves moved to join in our discussion. Unity -yes, it would be good. It will come in His good time. In the meantime, as the rest of this site shows, people can come here and discover what the Copts really believe - and the witness they have made for so very long under such conditions. The Christian Church is built on the blood of the martyrs - and the Copts have so many that their calendar starts with the greatest of the persecutions.
In this world we have many foes; and if unity is a far-distant aspiration, we can at least not lend ammunition to our enemies by fighting each other - another reason I appreciate your posts and the tone you bring here and elsewhere. One only has to look at why it was the Arabs were able to make such headway back in the long aftermath of Chalcedon to see what damage we can do to ourselves as Christians; the Church paid, and still pays, a heavy price. Now, at least, we can have such discussions - and if our enemies are dismayed - then perhaps we may hope that they will have further cause in the future.
In Christ,
John