As ever, Κηφᾶς helps us towards a deeper understanding of things.
If you think about it for a moment, each of us is going to say that his/her Church is THE Church, and we are each going to use a remarkably similar set of arguments which convince only those who agree with us. Did anyone ever get into this sort of discussion and find an EO or and RC who said: 'Yes, goodness gracious, now you put it like that, I'm going to become a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church!'
We have a deep and profound mystery. In our Church, in the EO Churches, in the RC Church, and in the Protestant Churches, there are millions of pious men and women who do their best to adhere to the teachings of their Church, who read their Bibles, pray, fast, and try, as best they can, to walk in His way. They teach Sunday School, they listen to their priests, and they are pillars of their local community; they do their best in their lives to bear witness to Him. And yet, if only one of these Churches is THE Church, then it could be that millions of these are in grievous error, and may even be in peril of damnation. Is that how we see our God behaving? Or is that how sinful man behaves?
I do not pretend to have an answer to this question. How can there be but one Church and yet so many Churches professing to be the one? How can it be that there are so many who call on His name who might be in error.
But the God who so loved us that the Word became Incarnate, suffered, died and rose from the dead to redeem us, He knows the answer. His wisdom is infinite, and if He allows this, He has His reasons. All I can do as an obedient son is to admit to my ignorance and try, as best I can, to love others as He loves me.
I know only that when I criticise another Church, I say what I should not say, and I speak what should not be spoken. So I prefer to acknowledge that there are so many EO, RC and Protestants whose lives are more patterned upon His than mine is; and who am I that I should focus upon the mote in their eye when the beam in mine so blinds me?
Thank you both Κηφᾶς and Anglian for your great posts, and you are both right not one of us is going to go against the teachings of our own church but yet are in no authority to talk about any other church either. it is best to run the race with blinders for how can we correct anyone else while the plank is still in our eyes as well again thanks to both of you for your great posts i benefitted much from them
This discussion could proceed forever but there is one point I would like to remind everyone about. There is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, not several. If the Coptic church is the one then the others have some other status-maybe they are non-churches containing some grace filled people. The Pope of Rome is merely saying what you would have expected him to say and he has been honest. (Some Roman Catholics believe that the Orthodox and Romans are sister churches. This can't be true if they differ doctrinally. Apparent the Pope agrees).
In many Orthodox churches the cardinal sin of our day is ecumenism. Ecumenism as portrayed by these bodies means treating Christian truth as negotiable. Groups of Orthodox have gone into schism rather than be a part of the ecumenical movement.
I sense the Coptic church treats all Christians with love and respect but its doctrines, practices etc are not up for negotiation. That must be the position of any serious body claiming to be that of Christ. It is sad that there is no solution to the fact that there should not be these differing bodies all calling themselves the Body of Christ.
[quote author=aidan link=topic=5542.msg78881#msg78881 date=1193692121] This discussion could proceed forever but there is one point I would like to remind everyone about. There is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, not several. If the Coptic church is the one then the others have some other status-maybe they are non-churches containing some grace filled people. The Pope of Rome is merely saying what you would have expected him to say and he has been honest. (Some Roman Catholics believe that the Orthodox and Romans are sister churches. This can't be true if they differ doctrinally. Apparent the Pope agrees).
In many Orthodox churches the cardinal sin of our day is ecumenism. Ecumenism as portrayed by these bodies means treating Christian truth as negotiable. Groups of Orthodox have gone into schism rather than be a part of the ecumenical movement.
I sense the Coptic church treats all Christians with love and respect but its doctrines, practices etc are not up for negotiation. That must be the position of any serious body claiming to be that of Christ. It is sad that there is no solution to the fact that there should not be these differing bodies all calling themselves the Body of Christ.
Dear Aidan,
of course, all the Apostolic Churches would agree with that, but to say there can only be one Church is not necessarily to say that only one of those Churches is the Church.
How seriously do we and the Catholics, or we and the EO disagree doctrinally? It seems entirely possible that we have all developed in different parts of the world and have chosen, sinful as we all are, to emphasise our own claims; but how much do we know of the inwardness of belief of the other Churches claiming Apostolic origin?
I am not saying that there are not differences - but I am asking how serious and deep they are on doctrinal matters between the OO, EO and RCs?
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79032#msg79032 date=1194020479] but to say there can only be one Church is not necessarily to say that only one of those Churches is the Church.
Of course, there are examples from history which throw a spanner into the works of any consistent viewpoint regarding ecclesiology (although I think economia accounts for a large part of them), but I simply cannot reconcile your above statement with Patristic witness.
How does the view you've presented above differ from the "branch-theory"? (That is a genuine question, not an accusation)
The problem with Patristic witness on this one is that none of it deals with a situation analogous to the one we live with today. All the usual texts our Churches quote at each other to prove their own case are used by us all - which should tell us something.
Which of the Fathers tells us how we should view a situation where, after a millennium and a half, we have two Churches both claiming to be THE Orthodox Church, and another claiming to be the only true Church - with all three having martyrs, saints and a common devotion to a sacramental vision of the Church?
Patristics takes us so far. That's why I liked Pope Benedict's statement - at least he seems willing to acknowledge that the Orthodox are not just heretics or outside the pale. Much Orthodox ecclesiology seems to consist of stating that either the EO or the OO is THE Church. That's obviously true to us - but we're not convincing anyone - and not doing much in the way of converting anyone to our view. The Catholics, by contrast, are very much active across the globe.
A Church that can articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, and declare that His Body is broken but not divided ought not to have as much difficulty comprehending how there can be one Church in three parts.
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79045#msg79045 date=1194045527] Which of the Fathers tells us how we should view a situation where, after a millennium and a half, we have two Churches both claiming to be THE Orthodox Church, and another claiming to be the only true Church - with all three having martyrs, saints and a common devotion to a sacramental vision of the Church?
This depends, of course, on who one counts as Fathers. There are many holy men of the 20th century, who I'm sure will be regarded as Fathers by generations to come, that have spoken on the issue.
Going back a few centuries, however, many of the Church Fathers spoke about churches that had a "sacramental vision", saints and martyrs as being outside the Church of Christ. Does it not apply equally today?
Patristics takes us so far. That's why I liked Pope Benedict's statement - at least he seems willing to acknowledge that the Orthodox are not just heretics or outside the pale. Much Orthodox ecclesiology seems to consist of stating that either the EO or the OO is THE Church. That's obviously true to us - but we're not convincing anyone - and not doing much in the way of converting anyone to our view. The Catholics, by contrast, are very much active across the globe.
"True to us"? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but such a statement seems to make truth relative.
The global presence of Catholicism existed long before they decided to move away from the Orthodox understanding of the Church (which they seem to slowly be returning to). I don't think their view of ecclesiology has had an impact on their numbers either way.
A Church that can articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, and declare that His Body is broken but not divided ought not to have as much difficulty comprehending how there can be one Church in three parts.
I'm still having a hard time to see how this differs from the branch theory.
May I also ask if this view is merely a personal one, or is it one shared by Metropolitan Seraphim and prominent figures in the BOC?
Of course what I write is my own view, and in no way should be taken as anything more!
This is an interesting discussion, and I'd like to take the time your well posed questions deserve.
Perhaps the place to start is with the query that when I write
True to us"?
that might mean
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but such a statement seems to make truth relative.
It is more complex surely than such a simple dichotomy? The EO Church, like the Coptic Church and the Catholic Church makes a claim to be THE ONE Church; on a narrow ecclesiology this cannot be true, so at least two of them are not THE Church, and therefore millions of people are living in error and, if there is no salvation outside the Church, they are in peril of their immortal soul. Yet I do not see the OCs out there with the urgency that such a realisation would surely bring? Instead we get soft answers about 'only God knows' Well, that being so, is there any point at all in the narrow reading of ecclesiology? If God chooses (and only He does) then none of our Churches can know which of them is the ONE - they all believe they are; it is that truth which is relative. How can it be other to those outside our own Church?
You, as a pious Eastern Orthodox man believe what your Church tells you; but who speaks for your Church as a whole? I do the same, and ask myself the same question. My Roman Catholic friend does the same - and tells me it is the Pope - as my Coptic friends answer, meaning a different Pope, of course.
So, is Truth relative - no, of course not, it is the person the Risen Incarnate Word - whom we all claim; it is our claim that is relative, I fear to those who are not us.
Recourse to modern Fathers is not really going to help I fear, since by definition they belong, however holy, to the post-schism Church. The comments from the Fathers of the undivided Church are the inheritance of us all, and, alas (to me) we all use the same quotations to show that we are THE Church; of course we do, and of course we each believe that - but that convinces no one who does not wish to be convinced - does it?
Muslims, as we know, have a hard time understanding how the Trinity differs from worshipping 3 Gods - but we know it does. The Trinity is not a 'branch theory', nor need a broader ecclesiology be one - the one can be manifest in three forms - that much we all believe.
If one takes the view that the Oriental Orthodox Family is the Church against which the gates of Hades will not prevail, there are very good arguments we can deploy to show that. I know the same is true of the EO. I know the same is true of the RC. I have never seen a fervent RC be convinced by an Orthodox argument, or vice versa.
Yet, if one believes there is no salvation outside the Church, and one believes one's Church is that Church, why are we wasting time not evangelising the world? To say that only God knows is true, but if He can decide who is saved, do we hold that a pious and conscientious Catholic like John Paul II will need a grace different than that granted to the rest of us because he was not Orthodox? That seems, if you will pardon me, like little man constructing a God in his small image.
Much of our ecclesiology is self-referential, if not self-indulgent in a world where millions of babies are legally killed in their mother's womb, and where aggressive secularism and Islam threaten to take even more of the ground away from us. Perhaps we just cannot learn from the lessons of the six and seventh and the thirteenth and fourteenth and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and we shall, therefore, be condemned to repeat the bitter lessons.
I hope that my last post was not too heterodox! It does have a patristic precedent, of course - Origen's pre-Cyprian concept of the Church as embracing the whole human family called to salvation through Our Lord's sacrifice.
Cyprian's narrower conception is still with us today, but as I intimated in my last post, many modern commentators shy away from the obvious implications of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). Cyprian's ecclesiology, which is the one still used today, is in its essence a narrow and defensive one, concerned with drawing boundaries between 'us' and 'them'. Useful in a time of crisis, and still, today where Christianity is on the defensive; but an argument might be had that the effects of this ecclesiology have been quite as damaging as the effects of any heresy, in that it has not only led us to a situation where there are 3 Churches (at least) with plausible claims to Apolosticity and sacramentalism, and can only end up arguing over which of these claims is the better. Moreover, it leaves us with little to say to the Protestants or to the many other long-established religions.
An ecclesiology such as Origen's, which takes its beginnings from a cosmic vision of the love of God for mankind, and from the hope that we are all called to rise into the spiritual apprehension and (ultimately) the love of God, who comes to us all in the form of the Word Incarnate, may offer more insights for our world and our times than one based on fear.
Of course, in saying this I am probably in a minority of one, but when I see the state of the Churches in this world, I am surprised that there is so much satisfaction with the Cyprian vision.
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79057#msg79057 date=1194088863] The EO Church, like the Coptic Church and the Catholic Church makes a claim to be THE ONE Church; on a narrow ecclesiology this cannot be true, so at least two of them are not THE Church, and therefore millions of people are living in error and, if there is no salvation outside the Church, they are in peril of their immortal soul.
Yet your own position still leaves all the Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. - that make up the majority of the world's population - living in error and being in peril of their immortal soul.
So unless you broaden the definition of Church to include also these groups, you are faced with the exact same problem. But if all are part of the same Church, then why have the Church at all? The very word ekklisia means to be called apart. So clearly the word itself signifies something restricted, limited and not all-encompassing.
Yet I do not see the OCs out there with the urgency that such a realisation would surely bring?
Should not the realisation of Christ's love for us make us love Him unconditionally. Should not the realisation of His omniscence make us obey His commandments? Should the promise of the heavenly kingdom make us renounce our worldly posessions and desires?
Were you to apply the same logic to these questions, God would not be loving, nor wise, nor honest.
Instead we get soft answers about 'only God knows' Well, that being so, is there any point at all in the narrow reading of ecclesiology? If God chooses (and only He does) then none of our Churches can know which of them is the ONE - they all believe they are; it is that truth which is relative. How can it be other to those outside our own Church?
To say "only God knows what happens to those outside the Church" is very different to saying "only God knows which Church is true."
You, as a pious Eastern Orthodox man believe what your Church tells you; but who speaks for your Church as a whole?
The holy Scriptures, Apostolic tradition, the Councils, the canons, the Fathers, the worship, etc. of the Church all provide a framework within which to work.
All of these appear to support a traditional Orthodox ecclesiology.
So, is Truth relative - no, of course not, it is the person the Risen Incarnate Word - whom we all claim; it is our claim that is relative, I fear to those who are not us.
The claim to the Truth is no more relative than He is. For the Church was established and is headed by Christ. So it is a question of rightful and wrongful claim, not relativism.
The comments from the Fathers of the undivided Church are the inheritance of us all, and, alas (to me) we all use the same quotations to show that we are THE Church; of course we do, and of course we each believe that - but that convinces no one who does not wish to be convinced - does it?
Just because two or more groups claim the same thing, to the exclusion of the other, it does not necessarily follow that they're all wrong.
Muslims, as we know, have a hard time understanding how the Trinity differs from worshipping 3 Gods - but we know it does. The Trinity is not a 'branch theory', nor need a broader ecclesiology be one - the one can be manifest in three forms - that much we all believe.
Perhaps I am simply not aware of what the branch theory entails. Would you be so kind as to compare and contrast the branch theory with your own view in order to distinguish between the two? (when you have time of course).
Yet, if one believes there is no salvation outside the Church, and one believes one's Church is that Church, why are we wasting time not evangelising the world? To say that only God knows is true, but if He can decide who is saved, do we hold that a pious and conscientious Catholic like John Paul II will need a grace different than that granted to the rest of us because he was not Orthodox? That seems, if you will pardon me, like little man constructing a God in his small image.
I would rather see it as remaining faithful to God's revelation and not proclaiming "God cannot possible work like that because it offends my fallen human sensibilities."
Much of our ecclesiology is self-referential, if not self-indulgent in a world where millions of babies are legally killed in their mother's womb, and where aggressive secularism and Islam threaten to take even more of the ground away from us. Perhaps we just cannot learn from the lessons of the six and seventh and the thirteenth and fourteenth and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and we shall, therefore, be condemned to repeat the bitter lessons.
I suppose I just don't see how your view of the Church provides any solution to these problems.
but an argument might be had that the effects of this ecclesiology have been quite as damaging as the effects of any heresy, in that it has not only led us to a situation where there are 3 Churches (at least) with plausible claims to Apolosticity and sacramentalism, and can only end up arguing over which of these claims is the better
I dissagree. This is a bit like saying that there should be no absolute Truth, for if there is no truth no one could possibly be in error.
As for Origen's view, it seems to be ultimately tied up with the apokatastasis, which is not a notion either of our churches seems to accept.
I originally posted a more detailed response, but thanks to a momentary power-cut, I lost the whole thing seconds before I pressed post. So you'll have to forgive me if this second attempt was a bit hurried and not quite satisfactory.
I'm going to have to side with Orthodox11 on this one. I must say, it appears to me like your views on this matter have somewhat evolved quite "liberally" (for lack of a better word).
Muslims, as we know, have a hard time understanding how the Trinity differs from worshipping 3 Gods - but we know it does. The Trinity is not a 'branch theory', nor need a broader ecclesiology be one - the one can be manifest in three forms - that much we all believe.
Although I think the model of the Trinity to be an excellent, and very Scriptural, paradigm for understanding the nature of the Church, I do not think it assists the viewpoint you are trying to promote. After all, whilst distinct the Three Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united and in perfect harmony with one another. Such is not the case between the three communions in question.
The fact we have many local churches united mystically as One Church, is, I think, a better demonstration of multiplicity in unity. In other words, the fact the Coptic Church, the Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Armenian Church etc. are multiple churches, united as one Church is what ultimately and perfectly reflects the image of the Trinity.
I think Orthodox11 does well to observe that the difficulties which you invoke your particular model of ecclesiology to resolve, do not go away.
Don't you think it'd be more edifying to just focus on the salvation we know we presently experience in our own Church, do our best, according to the Grace that is given, to share that with others, and leave the matter of the implications our ecclesiology has to the salvation of others in God's hands?
Dear Iqbal, Dear Orthodox11, [quote author=Iqbal link=topic=5542.msg79067#msg79067 date=1194193688] Don't you think it'd be more edifying to just focus on the salvation we know we presently experience in our own Church, do our best, according to the Grace that is given, to share that with others, and leave the matter of the implications our ecclesiology has to the salvation of others in God's hands?
Of course what you say here is correct. It is equally correct for other Christians. The question, in dialogue with other Christian Churches surely becomes one of asking what implications this has for any such dialogue?
Of course, no one has to engage in such dialogues, but since I seem to spend quite a bit of time doing just that, it seems necessary to try to think through a base from which to operate.
Thus, I don't disagree with you or Orthodx11 about the Cyprianist ecclesiology, but when the latter comments in answer to my question about who speaks for his Church he writes something with which you, I, and my RC friend can all agree with:
The holy Scriptures, Apostolic tradition, the Councils, the canons, the Fathers, the worship, etc. of the Church all provide a framework within which to work.
Indeed they do, but let us unpack this for a moment.
We have the same scriptures, the same Apostolic tradition and many of the same Fathers; but the number of Councils we acknowledge are different, as are some of the canons, as is the shape of the Liturgy. Do these differences touch on the matter of our eternal salvation? I presume we think they do. What follows from these differences? That's why this statement, for me, needs further analysis:
To say "only God knows what happens to those outside the Church" is very different to saying "only God knows which Church is true."
Are both statements not true?
That takes us to the heart of the notion of relativism. When you write:
the Church was established and is headed by Christ. So it is a question of rightful and wrongful claim, not relativism.
it seems to me you enter swampy ground. Who decided what is 'rightful'? For myself, I accept the claims of the Coptic Church and therefore, regretfully conclude that the claims of your Church are 'wrongful'; I suspect that you might take precisely the opposite view. To my RC friend, we are both incorrect. To my atheist friends we are all rather silly people arguing over trifles; we probably all think he's wrong! From what vantage point do you get to a position which is true to you and to me? That is what I mean by relativism - the fact that you are right from your side, whilst I am right from mine.
So I do believe in Absolute Truth - in the Person of the Risen Lord as revealed through the Coptic Church, which I recognise as THE Church. It is in the Eucharistic encounter with Him at the altar that that encounter takes place most dramatically and personally, but it is through the traditions and teaching of the Church that I learn how to walk in His way. But then I have to find a way to deal with you and with my RC friend, who make the same claim.
At the end of the day, of course, I do what Iqbal recommends. But I still have to have some answer to the question of whether I do this by simply ignoring the differences between THE Church, which is my Church, and your Church and that of my RC friend, which, on traditional ecclesiology, cannot be the Church at all. If you are not in the Church, and my RC friend is not in the Church, is it not my duty as a loving Christian to tell you this? It is your duty to do the same to me.
But we know, I suspect, where such dialogues lead. Hence we tend to explore what the real disagreements between our Churches are. Should we, as some learned folk have already done, come to the view that these differences between the OO and EO are largely historical, what does that entail when viewing our histories?
The views advanced in my last couple of messages are, of course, speculative, and do not necessarily represent a settled position; indeed, quite the opposite. I can see why Orthodox11 links them to Origen's views of universal salvation, but we ought to remember that those views have been condemned only in so far as the Church has not affirmed they are correct; has it affirmed they are incorrect? (I meant to check up, but having got this far, don't want to risk losing it ... I'm sure Orthodox11 sympathises).
There is a line of thought which, as Fr. John McGuckin has shown in some of his recent writings, might well provide us with a framework for inter-Christian dialogue, as well as dialogue with those outside the Church. Much though my own conservative instincts incline against it, I do wonder whether, in the long ongoing history of our Faith, we are not at some point going to have to engage with some neglected parts of the Patristic heritage? Rather as with the human brain, where we only use a small percentage of its potential, we use only a tiny part of the Patristic heritage. Fr. McGuckin's attempts to access Origen's fertile genius may look like 'liberalism', but it may simply be 'not conservatism'.
Anyway, my friends, this is an interesting discussion, and I look forward to its continuation. I shall add, although I know I do not need to for the two of you, that many of the views I am putting forward are speculative, and are meant as incentives to further discussion; I am mindful of where this can lead - but know that here it will not do so.
I shall, I promise, return to the branch theory - but this is quite long enough.
Thanks for your reply. I will reply to the issues you raised in due time, but I just wanted to quickly make a point here:
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79070#msg79070 date=1194199350] Of course what you say here is correct. It is equally correct for other Christians. The question, in dialogue with other Christian Churches surely becomes one of asking what implications this has for any such dialogue?
Of course, no one has to engage in such dialogues, but since I seem to spend quite a bit of time doing just that, it seems necessary to try to think through a base from which to operate.
Without wishing to point any fingers at you personally, it seems to me that this is precisely where the danger of ecumenical dialogue lies. Dialogue for the sake of mutual understanding (and any advancements towards unity that happens as a result of that understanding) is great.
But when such dialogue, and unity of men, becomes a justification for ignoring or changing what one holds to be true, this is when dialogue becomes both irresponsible and dangerous. It is this latter form of ecumenism that has caused such great controversy and widespread condemnation. The late Fr. Arsenia Boca said that this type of ecumenism "is the heresy of all heresies, the fall of the Church through its own servants." I am inclined to agree with him.
I'm not suggesting that dialogue must become monologue. Nor do I believe the circular reasoning of "my church is right because it says so" is helpful. What I'm saying is that any dialogue must be based on the existance of an absolute Truth and remaining faithful to it, and not to create our own 'truths' for the sake of unity.
I sincerely believe honest schism is preferable to false unity.
The purpose of dialogue is not to convert others; if it were, then the difficulties you are having, which seem to seek as their only resolution some sort of foolproof objective standard by which groups with differing claims can arrive at the absolute truth of the matter, would be perfectly understandeable.
The purpose of dialogue is to create a context in which God is capable of watering, by His Grace, the seeds we plant. That there exist groups with differing claims to what is truth does not undermine, from our perspective, the very real and experienced belief that it is the claim of the Church, which we understanding to be our own communion, which is the only reliable and trustworthy one. Our duty is not to prove that to other people, but to share that experience with others in a way that provokes an inclination or desire to understand and seek the Truth; an inclination and desire that God ultimately works with in His own way.
I am in total agreement with what you (and Orthodox11) write.
I suspect that I am being unclear about what I doing, which is neither aimed at converting anyone, nor yet at establishing some objective standard; indeed, my belief that neither of these things is even possible lies at the heart of the enquiry into the nature of true ecumenism.
Again, I agree that our task is
to share that experience with others in a way that provokes an inclination or desire to understand and seek the Truth; an inclination and desire that God ultimately works with in His own way
but at some point that 'someone' will have a choice to make. One can say that the Lord will lead him or her, but in my experience that does not quite do to help the anxious enquirer who, seeing EOs and OOs and belonging, by culture and history to neither, asks 'which one?'
It is not false ecumenism, I hope, to want to be able to say something to enquirers in this situation?
I do hope that nothing I have written suggests that I hold the view that
such dialogue, and unity of men, becomes a justification for ignoring or changing what one holds to be true
Of course
honest schism is preferable to false unity.
but how 'honest' is the current schism? Many of the responses to the declarations from the 'unity' dialogue are not responses to what is being said, but a refusal to accept the implications of the view that there are no longer doctrinal grounds for division. That I understand. If there has been a 'misunderstanding' it has implications for the Orthodox on both sides of a needless division. So, this is not about a dichotomy between an honest schism and false unity; indeed it might even be the other way round - honest unity (which would mean repentance from both sides) is preferable to false schism.
Were there a convincing demonstration that the differences between EO and OO were indeed 'honest schism', I would be in entire agreement with you; it is because it seems to me a dishonest schism, powered by human sinfulness and a prideful refusal to repent, that I do not think the ecumenical impulse here anything but honest.
The question of relations with the Roman Catholics is a more difficult one, but it strikes me that Pope Benedict's statement does exactly what you and I would both want - defines honest differences as a means of encouraging dialogue.
Perhaps one should not try to think too far ahead, but Fr. McGuckin's writings on this theme illustrate just the sort of search for an ecclesiological framework which will be necessary if unity talks are to continue. It is in the nature of all intellectual inquiry that there will be suggested roads which turn out to be blocked, but we should not refuse to do the brain work necessary. God works through His creation, and if pious and intelligent Orthodox Christians are trying to recapture some of the intellectual dynamism that once made Orthodoxy the powerhouse of world Christianity, then we have to accept that some of the ideas will make us uncomfortable. Just think how some folk reacted to St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nazianzus.
Our developing understanding of the Faith did not, surely, end in the sixth, ninth or fifteenth century?
I suspect that I am being unclear about what I doing, which is neither aimed at converting anyone, nor yet at establishing some objective standard
I realise that, and I was not trying to imply that either of these are your aim. My last post was written upon the presumption that you are suggesting that evangelising and pusuing ecumenical dialogue upon the presumption of a traditional ecclesiology necessitates a) that there be such an objective standard, and b) that we go out trying to convert everyone, and that the difficulties associated with a) and b) challenge the integrity of a traditional ecclesiology. My point was not that you are wrong in promoting a) and b)--since you are not promoting them in the first place, but that you are wrong in presuming that the difficulties associated with them have any implications with respect to traditional ecclesiology.
but at some point that 'someone' will have a choice to make
Well that much is obvious. But I don't see what the problem is? Obviously we cannot force one into the way of Truth. That is why we have free will no?
One can say that the Lord will lead him or her, but in my experience that does not quite do to help the anxious enquirer who, seeing EOs and OOs and belonging, by culture and history to neither, asks 'which one?'
Anglian, I honestly do not see what the problem is. Someone comes to you, a faithful OO, and asks your advice regarding where to find the Church. If there is any integrity in your conviction as an OO, you will guide them to the path of the OO Church--since that is the path you know and experience with trust and sincerity, and the rest rests upon the interaction between their free will and the Grace of God. It is really that simple. You confuse the poor inquirer, and not to mention undermine the integrity of your conviction in the Church by suggesting that there is really no difference where they go, and by promoting an inclusive ecclesiology.
Of course, and I am not disagreeing with what you say at all. But if (and this happens fairly frequently) someone says 'I understand your own convictions, but here am I looking at 3 Apostolic Churches, why do you say that I should look more seriously at your Church when the EO people I've been taking to say it is schismatic?' That inevitably involves some discussion of ecclesiology, which leads to an interesting place when they tell me that they've had just the same ecclesiological talk with their EO interlocutor.
I guess the fact that most of the people I discuss these things with are middle-aged professional people with some background in theology may influence the direction the discussions take. Do have a look at Fr. McGuckin's latest article on ecclesiology in The International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church volume 6, number 3, 2006; I'd be really interested in your views.
But if (and this happens fairly frequently) someone says 'I understand your own convictions, but here am I looking at 3 Apostolic Churches, why do you say that I should look more seriously at your Church when the EO people I've been taking to say it is schismatic?' That inevitably involves some discussion of ecclesiology, which leads to an interesting place when they tell me that they've had just the same ecclesiological talk with their EO interlocutor.
At which point I give my reasons as to why I believe the OO claim to be more reliable and trustworthy. I do not leave the inquirer guessing. I have reasons for which I believe my experience to be justified. Again, those reasons are not foolproof—no reason will or can ever be; ultimately, definitive conviction comes from Christ. If the idea that they must ultimately rely on Christ to lead them is unsatisfactory to them then they may as well be atheists, because that is simply how God operates. We do not leave the inquirer directionless or absolutely deprived of any reason whatsoever; we do our part—that's the planting the seed part, and then it's up to them to invite God to water that seed through their own ascesis.
I guess the fact that most of the people I discuss these things with are middle-aged professional people with some background in theology may influence the direction the discussions take.
I take this to imply that you believe my responses to be simplistic. Which is fine. They are meant to be, precisely because I think this is really a very simple matter that you are unnecessarily complicating.
There is one Church. If an inquirer asks me about my faith, I make it clear that there is one Church. If they tell me that they have heard such from a number of persons from a number of different communions and they would like to discern which claim is the rightful claim, I give them a defence for the hope that is in me, and advise them to do their part by establishing a spiritual context in which God can complete their conversion His own way. What is wrong with this scenario? If the problem is with that final element which requires the awaiting of God's intervention, all I can say is that is a problem that has nothing to do with traditional ecclesiology—that is simply how God operates.
I will look up and read the article you recommend some time next week after my exams.
I take this to imply that you believe my responses to be simplistic. Which is fine. They are meant to be, precisely because I think this is really a very simple matter that you are unnecessarily complicating.
that wasn't at all what I was saying, indeed, it was quite the opposite. What I was implying was that because the people I talk to have complicated ways of coming at this, that did, indeed, make what can be a simple situation complex; so I actually agree with you, and don't at all think you are being simplistic.
Those coming towards Orthodoxy from another Christian background are usually more than familiar with the traditional ecclesiology, and more often than not they don't disagree with it; indeed, it is precisely because they take it deadly seriously that they feel the need to know which is THE Church.
In the end, of course the scenario you outline is the one that has to operate, but there is often a very long time between an individual becoming disillusioned with where he/she is and their deciding to become a catechumen. It is out of such discussions that the questions I am discussing tend to arise.
In another forum an other poster has put it more eloquently than I can manage:
Yes, there is only one Church, which is the only road to salvation, and the whole world is indeed, potentially, the Church. The only problem is the human perception of who is in the Church, not God's perception. We must follow the commands of Christ, we must live within the precepts of the Apostles and the Fathers, and then pray that we are really doing this. If you read the monastic Fathers in particular you will see how they understand the subtle slyness of the Devil in making us believe that by being baptised and attending the Liturgy we are necessarily doing everything else right. It does matter that we are in an Apostolic Church, but that in itself will not be sufficient if we lack love towards our fellow creatures.
That last part really strikes home, as does the phrase about the 'human perception'.
I promised to say something on the branch theory and on the difference between that and the speculative thoughts in one of the earlier posts, and having a little time unexpectedly, I thought I'd do so now.
The 'branch theory' posits the view that there was a single undivided Church before 451 A.D., but that since then the 'tree' that is the Church has developed various 'branches'. One of these would be the OO family, another the EO family, a third the RC's, and finally, the many branches of the Protestant Churches. In some variations only those Protestant Churches with a claim to Apostolic foundation (the Anglicans and the Lutherans) would be included.
It is a way of trying to explain how, despite His command that we should 'be one' there are so many 'Churches' confessing His name.
The iconography, liturgical life, Creeds and dogmatic believing of the ancient Church came down to us in forms at once Eastern and Western; this rich unity of patristic culture, expressing as it did the faith of the apostolic community was shattered by the schism between Catholics and Orthodox, even as it had earlier been damaged by Chalcedon. Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox all claim the exclusive title of THE Church - yet each of them inherits the same rich patristic culture, whilst claiming that only one of them possesses the 'fullness of the Faith'.
Against this backcloth it seems to me that the metaphor of the tree is fatally flawed - although one can see its point. What we are really talking about are the iconography, liturgical life, creeds and dogmas of the early Church which each of the modern Apostolic Churches claims to be the whole of.
There are some Catholic writers who have the humility (often wanting in all three Churches) to acknowledge that after 1054 (and I quote one):
No Church could now lay claim to the total cultural patrimony of both Eastern and Western Chalcedonianism - that is, the christologically and therefore triadologically and soteriologically correct understanding of the Gospel.
We can claim that the OO, the EO or the RCs do indeed possess the 'total cultural patrimony', but that is where we will disagree; my Catholic source (Fr. Aidan Nichols) evinces a humility from which we could all learn. Taking the same line as Pope Benedict takes in the CDF document, Fr. Aidan states:
the Orthodox churches are churches in the apostolic succession; they are bearers of the apostolic Tradition, witnesses to apostolic faith, worship and order - even though they are also, and at the same time, unhappily sundered from the prima sedes, the first see. Their Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, their liturgical texts and practices, their iconographic tradition, these remain loci theologici - authoritative sources - to which the Catholic theologian can and must turn in his or her intellectual construal of Catholic Christianity.
He goers on to write:
only the Orthodox are, along with the Catholic Church, bearers of Holy Tradition - in the singular, with a capital 'T', that is, of the Gospel in its plenary organic transmission through the entirety of the life - credal, doxological, ethical - of Christ's Church.
What we find on examination is that the OO, the EO and the RCs are all liturgical, dogmatic and monastic Churches; all confess the Nicene Creed; all recognise the same Christology (even if the EO and the OO won't always admit it); all recognise that there are some real differences between them.
It seems to me that we need an ecclesiology which says something about the common patristic and dogmatic inheritance as well as speaking to the differences. There is no inherent reason why St. Cyprian's ecclesiology cannot do this - just that we usually stress the boundaries. Of course, St. Cyprian did not have to deal with a situation where three Churches, all with a claim to part of the common patristic inheritance, would claim it all for more than a millennium and a half; that is our task - if we can embrace it.
'Branches' won't do, and it may be that Fr. John McGuckin's speculations won't either - but it seems good that some Orthodox theologians should be meditating on this matter.
As we have no examples of how such schisms can be healed - since they never have been - it may be rank optimism to think they can - but His command is there - and we ignore it at our peril - surely?
Of course, St. Cyprian did not have to deal with a situation where three Churches, all with a claim to part of the common patristic inheritance, would claim it all for more than a millennium and a half; that is our task - if we can embrace it.
St. Cyprian actually dealt with a far more difficult situation than the false ecumenical efforts that we have at hand, in which he denied the sacraments of schismatics and not even heretics. In fact, the ordination of those schismatics was not as clearly denied as ,say, the Catholics or Chalcedonian Byzantine branch.
Ecumenists usually hate his name because his apostolic and sound Orthodox ecclesiology puts them to shame. It should be noted that the branch theory has no foundation in the Apostolic teachings or in the Fathers, it is only found in modern false ecumenists who use the quotes of the likes of Kallistos Ware and Bulgakov among other ecumenical figures to impose some kind of Orthodoxy on their approach. One can site Ignatius, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Hippolytus as direct witness to the faith as well as the struggle of Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscoros, Severus and Timothy against the heretics as a living and practical witness to the boundaries of the Church.
The 'branch theory' posits the view that there was a single undivided Church before 451 A.D., but that since then the 'tree' that is the Church has developed various 'branches'
The choice of the 451 a.d. as the date for the branches to begin developing is clearly arbitrarly to suit current, 40-year old, ecumenical efforts that have the potential to develop into a full communion. There is nothing sound dogmatic reason behind it but it is pure business and politics.
What about choosing 325 a.d. as a method to include Arians in the Church? Or maybe 431 a.d. with regard to the Nestorians which is an identical situation to the Chalcedonians yet personal interests have moved the date 20 years afterwards to allow for ecumenical hypocrisy to fully develop.
A tree is identified by its fruits, which clearly differs from the orthodox Church to the Chalcedonians, Latins and Protestants with their 33,000 denominations. It is not characteristic of a tree to persecute its own as the Chalcedonians did to the Orthodox for 200 years until the Islamic conquest took over.
What is being said agrees that there is no merit in the 'branch' theory; I was trying to answer Orthodox 11's perfectly reasonable question as to how what I was saying earlier differed from it.
If one holds that 'by their fruits shall ye know them', then the fruits of the Christian schism are indeed bitter. St. Cyprian did not have to deal with a situation in which after more than a thousand years separate Churches, each claiming Apostolicity and martyrs continued to exist.
Of course 'false' ecumenists dislike traditional ecclesiology - but it is worth noting that the RCs and the EOs have exactly the same ecclesiology as we do. If one holds that all ecumenism is false then fair enough; but if one holds that His command that they might all be one is to be taken seriously, one has to find a language in which to describe what we have in common as well as what separates us.
This is not a plea - for indifferentism. I hold very deeply the view that the Coptic Church is THE Church against which the gates of hades will not prevail. But if I am asked to believe that it holds the whole patristic heritage east and west, then it gives me pause for thought. We, as Oriental Orthodox take on board the insights of Maximos the Confessor, and yet we know his views on the non-Chalcedonians. We hold St. Isaac the Syrian to be a saint, and yet he was a bishop in a Church our forefathers thought Nestorian. These things suggest a wider reading of what it is to be 'the Church'. The nature of that reading might benefit from some clarification and a language in which it can be expressed.
But, on the branch theory, any criticisms are fine, because I do not think it a tenable position.
Yes, there is only one Church, which is the only road to salvation, and the whole world is indeed, potentially, the Church. The only problem is the human perception of who is in the Church, not God's perception. We must follow the commands of Christ, we must live within the precepts of the Apostles and the Fathers, and then pray that we are really doing this. If you read the monastic Fathers in particular you will see how they understand the subtle slyness of the Devil in making us believe that by being baptised and attending the Liturgy we are necessarily doing everything else right. It does matter that we are in an Apostolic Church, but that in itself will not be sufficient if we lack love towards our fellow creatures.
It is truly full of wisdom and definitely should give all of us pause for contemplation.
Dear sisters and brethren I know you all have the most excellent of intentions. Who wouldn't be fascinated by movements hoping to reach us into the universal unity of Christian Faith and Practice? BUT I invite you to read, watch and study very carefully these serious links:
I chose them because they are in English, clear enough and not specific to our COC and I couldn't possibly express all these info and details in good accuracy.
Ecumenism could become a very dangerous and deceptive situation. It paves the way for the undermining of true Orthodoxy, and eventually - at the end of days - to some formula of a religious pluralism.
It declared that churches outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ in specific, he stated that churches were "suffering from a wound"
The expression in bold quoted above is exactly what many modern times Christian sects very strongly hold against the RCC. It is thus a twisted fact: it should rather point the other way, or let them use a mirror. You may like to read this article, with God's grace in the purest analytical neutral approach, without becoming biased, offended or annoyed especially regarding the Sabbath issues. The wound suffered by the RCC is clearly analyzed in detail by these authors and stated somewhere down their page. http://www.worldslastchance.com/full_article.php
That website (worlslastchance) is not only dubious, but it is just inflammatory and dishonest. It is written by silly Reformists, that have no regard to St. John's Revelations as a spiritual guide, and their seduction of people's curiosity about the beast and filling people's heads with this nonsense should be punished by Almighty God. How dare they twist Scripture like that, and try to get Google sponsorship to proliferate their filth.
We have real facts about some problems about the RCC without succumbing to the reckless and deceitful views by the equally if not more so blind Reformists.
They talk evily of an elder of the people- of the Roman pontiff no-less. We should not entertain their disregard for Christ's anointed.
It might also be worth while pointing out that if one looks up Copts on the Orthodoxinfo site it still accuses of of being Monophysites, so it is not a site from which I would care to take anything away other than the impression that it is written by a convert who seems to have a very narrow view of the Church.
Orthodoxinfo website and the youtube videos are wrong in their conclusion that the Chalcedonian church has any part in the Apostolic Tradition, something that was denied to them since they fell into Nestorianism in Chalcedon by the mouth of Dioscoros, Severus, Timothy, Theodosius, Acacius, and the rest of the Church for the past 16 centuries. The fact that they regard the Orthodox and Monophysite is unfortunate and very wrong and needs a lot of prayers to enlighten those who are blind yet have excellent intentions. The article is fine if reversed in this regard and would have been written by an Orthodox.
Yet their approach is indeed orthodox. There is but one Church and there is no narrow or broad view when it comes to the Church. There is "no salvation outside the Church" and it stands at that.
Although we Orthodox do not give much attention about the literal interpretation of the book of revelation, the one thing that is important to know is that Ecumenism indeed paves the way to the World order that will help the Anti-Christ rule. It is not bad intentions necessarily that makes an Orthodox participate in heretical meetings, and I attended those and they are nothing but heresies, it is ignorance and dishonesty.
Comments
If you think about it for a moment, each of us is going to say that his/her Church is THE Church, and we are each going to use a remarkably similar set of arguments which convince only those who agree with us. Did anyone ever get into this sort of discussion and find an EO or and RC who said: 'Yes, goodness gracious, now you put it like that, I'm going to become a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church!'
We have a deep and profound mystery. In our Church, in the EO Churches, in the RC Church, and in the Protestant Churches, there are millions of pious men and women who do their best to adhere to the teachings of their Church, who read their Bibles, pray, fast, and try, as best they can, to walk in His way. They teach Sunday School, they listen to their priests, and they are pillars of their local community; they do their best in their lives to bear witness to Him. And yet, if only one of these Churches is THE Church, then it could be that millions of these are in grievous error, and may even be in peril of damnation. Is that how we see our God behaving? Or is that how sinful man behaves?
I do not pretend to have an answer to this question. How can there be but one Church and yet so many Churches professing to be the one? How can it be that there are so many who call on His name who might be in error.
But the God who so loved us that the Word became Incarnate, suffered, died and rose from the dead to redeem us, He knows the answer. His wisdom is infinite, and if He allows this, He has His reasons. All I can do as an obedient son is to admit to my ignorance and try, as best I can, to love others as He loves me.
I know only that when I criticise another Church, I say what I should not say, and I speak what should not be spoken. So I prefer to acknowledge that there are so many EO, RC and Protestants whose lives are more patterned upon His than mine is; and who am I that I should focus upon the mote in their eye when the beam in mine so blinds me?
In Christ,
Anglian
In many Orthodox churches the cardinal sin of our day is ecumenism. Ecumenism as portrayed by these bodies means treating Christian truth as negotiable. Groups of Orthodox have gone into schism rather than be a part of the ecumenical movement.
I sense the Coptic church treats all Christians with love and respect but its doctrines, practices etc are not up for negotiation. That must be the position of any serious body claiming to be that of Christ. It is sad that there is no solution to the fact that there should not be these differing bodies all calling themselves the Body of Christ.
This discussion could proceed forever but there is one point I would like to remind everyone about. There is One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, not several. If the Coptic church is the one then the others have some other status-maybe they are non-churches containing some grace filled people. The Pope of Rome is merely saying what you would have expected him to say and he has been honest. (Some Roman Catholics believe that the Orthodox and Romans are sister churches. This can't be true if they differ doctrinally. Apparent the Pope agrees).
In many Orthodox churches the cardinal sin of our day is ecumenism. Ecumenism as portrayed by these bodies means treating Christian truth as negotiable. Groups of Orthodox have gone into schism rather than be a part of the ecumenical movement.
I sense the Coptic church treats all Christians with love and respect but its doctrines, practices etc are not up for negotiation. That must be the position of any serious body claiming to be that of Christ. It is sad that there is no solution to the fact that there should not be these differing bodies all calling themselves the Body of Christ.
Dear Aidan,
of course, all the Apostolic Churches would agree with that, but to say there can only be one Church is not necessarily to say that only one of those Churches is the Church.
How seriously do we and the Catholics, or we and the EO disagree doctrinally? It seems entirely possible that we have all developed in different parts of the world and have chosen, sinful as we all are, to emphasise our own claims; but how much do we know of the inwardness of belief of the other Churches claiming Apostolic origin?
I am not saying that there are not differences - but I am asking how serious and deep they are on doctrinal matters between the OO, EO and RCs?
In Christ,
Anglian
but to say there can only be one Church is not necessarily to say that only one of those Churches is the Church.
Of course, there are examples from history which throw a spanner into the works of any consistent viewpoint regarding ecclesiology (although I think economia accounts for a large part of them), but I simply cannot reconcile your above statement with Patristic witness.
How does the view you've presented above differ from the "branch-theory"? (That is a genuine question, not an accusation)
The problem with Patristic witness on this one is that none of it deals with a situation analogous to the one we live with today. All the usual texts our Churches quote at each other to prove their own case are used by us all - which should tell us something.
Which of the Fathers tells us how we should view a situation where, after a millennium and a half, we have two Churches both claiming to be THE Orthodox Church, and another claiming to be the only true Church - with all three having martyrs, saints and a common devotion to a sacramental vision of the Church?
Patristics takes us so far. That's why I liked Pope Benedict's statement - at least he seems willing to acknowledge that the Orthodox are not just heretics or outside the pale. Much Orthodox ecclesiology seems to consist of stating that either the EO or the OO is THE Church. That's obviously true to us - but we're not convincing anyone - and not doing much in the way of converting anyone to our view. The Catholics, by contrast, are very much active across the globe.
A Church that can articulate the doctrine of the Trinity, and declare that His Body is broken but not divided ought not to have as much difficulty comprehending how there can be one Church in three parts.
In Christ,
Anglian
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79045#msg79045 date=1194045527]
Which of the Fathers tells us how we should view a situation where, after a millennium and a half, we have two Churches both claiming to be THE Orthodox Church, and another claiming to be the only true Church - with all three having martyrs, saints and a common devotion to a sacramental vision of the Church?
This depends, of course, on who one counts as Fathers. There are many holy men of the 20th century, who I'm sure will be regarded as Fathers by generations to come, that have spoken on the issue.
Going back a few centuries, however, many of the Church Fathers spoke about churches that had a "sacramental vision", saints and martyrs as being outside the Church of Christ. Does it not apply equally today? "True to us"? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding, but such a statement seems to make truth relative.
The global presence of Catholicism existed long before they decided to move away from the Orthodox understanding of the Church (which they seem to slowly be returning to). I don't think their view of ecclesiology has had an impact on their numbers either way. I'm still having a hard time to see how this differs from the branch theory.
May I also ask if this view is merely a personal one, or is it one shared by Metropolitan Seraphim and prominent figures in the BOC?
Thanks for taking the time to answer
Of course what I write is my own view, and in no way should be taken as anything more!
This is an interesting discussion, and I'd like to take the time your well posed questions deserve.
Perhaps the place to start is with the query that when I write that might mean It is more complex surely than such a simple dichotomy? The EO Church, like the Coptic Church and the Catholic Church makes a claim to be THE ONE Church; on a narrow ecclesiology this cannot be true, so at least two of them are not THE Church, and therefore millions of people are living in error and, if there is no salvation outside the Church, they are in peril of their immortal soul. Yet I do not see the OCs out there with the urgency that such a realisation would surely bring? Instead we get soft answers about 'only God knows' Well, that being so, is there any point at all in the narrow reading of ecclesiology? If God chooses (and only He does) then none of our Churches can know which of them is the ONE - they all believe they are; it is that truth which is relative. How can it be other to those outside our own Church?
You, as a pious Eastern Orthodox man believe what your Church tells you; but who speaks for your Church as a whole? I do the same, and ask myself the same question. My Roman Catholic friend does the same - and tells me it is the Pope - as my Coptic friends answer, meaning a different Pope, of course.
So, is Truth relative - no, of course not, it is the person the Risen Incarnate Word - whom we all claim; it is our claim that is relative, I fear to those who are not us.
Recourse to modern Fathers is not really going to help I fear, since by definition they belong, however holy, to the post-schism Church. The comments from the Fathers of the undivided Church are the inheritance of us all, and, alas (to me) we all use the same quotations to show that we are THE Church; of course we do, and of course we each believe that - but that convinces no one who does not wish to be convinced - does it?
Muslims, as we know, have a hard time understanding how the Trinity differs from worshipping 3 Gods - but we know it does. The Trinity is not a 'branch theory', nor need a broader ecclesiology be one - the one can be manifest in three forms - that much we all believe.
If one takes the view that the Oriental Orthodox Family is the Church against which the gates of Hades will not prevail, there are very good arguments we can deploy to show that. I know the same is true of the EO. I know the same is true of the RC. I have never seen a fervent RC be convinced by an Orthodox argument, or vice versa.
Yet, if one believes there is no salvation outside the Church, and one believes one's Church is that Church, why are we wasting time not evangelising the world? To say that only God knows is true, but if He can decide who is saved, do we hold that a pious and conscientious Catholic like John Paul II will need a grace different than that granted to the rest of us because he was not Orthodox? That seems, if you will pardon me, like little man constructing a God in his small image.
Much of our ecclesiology is self-referential, if not self-indulgent in a world where millions of babies are legally killed in their mother's womb, and where aggressive secularism and Islam threaten to take even more of the ground away from us. Perhaps we just cannot learn from the lessons of the six and seventh and the thirteenth and fourteenth and the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and we shall, therefore, be condemned to repeat the bitter lessons.
In Christ,
Anglian
I hope that my last post was not too heterodox! It does have a patristic precedent, of course - Origen's pre-Cyprian concept of the Church as embracing the whole human family called to salvation through Our Lord's sacrifice.
Cyprian's narrower conception is still with us today, but as I intimated in my last post, many modern commentators shy away from the obvious implications of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation). Cyprian's ecclesiology, which is the one still used today, is in its essence a narrow and defensive one, concerned with drawing boundaries between 'us' and 'them'. Useful in a time of crisis, and still, today where Christianity is on the defensive; but an argument might be had that the effects of this ecclesiology have been quite as damaging as the effects of any heresy, in that it has not only led us to a situation where there are 3 Churches (at least) with plausible claims to Apolosticity and sacramentalism, and can only end up arguing over which of these claims is the better. Moreover, it leaves us with little to say to the Protestants or to the many other long-established religions.
An ecclesiology such as Origen's, which takes its beginnings from a cosmic vision of the love of God for mankind, and from the hope that we are all called to rise into the spiritual apprehension and (ultimately) the love of God, who comes to us all in the form of the Word Incarnate, may offer more insights for our world and our times than one based on fear.
Of course, in saying this I am probably in a minority of one, but when I see the state of the Churches in this world, I am surprised that there is so much satisfaction with the Cyprian vision.
In Christ,
Anglian
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79057#msg79057 date=1194088863]
The EO Church, like the Coptic Church and the Catholic Church makes a claim to be THE ONE Church; on a narrow ecclesiology this cannot be true, so at least two of them are not THE Church, and therefore millions of people are living in error and, if there is no salvation outside the Church, they are in peril of their immortal soul.
Yet your own position still leaves all the Muslims, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, etc. - that make up the majority of the world's population - living in error and being in peril of their immortal soul.
So unless you broaden the definition of Church to include also these groups, you are faced with the exact same problem. But if all are part of the same Church, then why have the Church at all? The very word ekklisia means to be called apart. So clearly the word itself signifies something restricted, limited and not all-encompassing. Should not the realisation of Christ's love for us make us love Him unconditionally. Should not the realisation of His omniscence make us obey His commandments? Should the promise of the heavenly kingdom make us renounce our worldly posessions and desires?
Were you to apply the same logic to these questions, God would not be loving, nor wise, nor honest. To say "only God knows what happens to those outside the Church" is very different to saying "only God knows which Church is true." The holy Scriptures, Apostolic tradition, the Councils, the canons, the Fathers, the worship, etc. of the Church all provide a framework within which to work.
All of these appear to support a traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. The claim to the Truth is no more relative than He is. For the Church was established and is headed by Christ. So it is a question of rightful and wrongful claim, not relativism. Just because two or more groups claim the same thing, to the exclusion of the other, it does not necessarily follow that they're all wrong. Perhaps I am simply not aware of what the branch theory entails. Would you be so kind as to compare and contrast the branch theory with your own view in order to distinguish between the two? (when you have time of course). I would rather see it as remaining faithful to God's revelation and not proclaiming "God cannot possible work like that because it offends my fallen human sensibilities." I suppose I just don't see how your view of the Church provides any solution to these problems. I dissagree. This is a bit like saying that there should be no absolute Truth, for if there is no truth no one could possibly be in error.
As for Origen's view, it seems to be ultimately tied up with the apokatastasis, which is not a notion either of our churches seems to accept.
I originally posted a more detailed response, but thanks to a momentary power-cut, I lost the whole thing seconds before I pressed post. So you'll have to forgive me if this second attempt was a bit hurried and not quite satisfactory.
In XC
I'm going to have to side with Orthodox11 on this one. I must say, it appears to me like your views on this matter have somewhat evolved quite "liberally" (for lack of a better word). Although I think the model of the Trinity to be an excellent, and very Scriptural, paradigm for understanding the nature of the Church, I do not think it assists the viewpoint you are trying to promote. After all, whilst distinct the Three Persons of the Trinity are perfectly united and in perfect harmony with one another. Such is not the case between the three communions in question.
The fact we have many local churches united mystically as One Church, is, I think, a better demonstration of multiplicity in unity. In other words, the fact the Coptic Church, the Syrian Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Armenian Church etc. are multiple churches, united as one Church is what ultimately and perfectly reflects the image of the Trinity.
I think Orthodox11 does well to observe that the difficulties which you invoke your particular model of ecclesiology to resolve, do not go away.
Don't you think it'd be more edifying to just focus on the salvation we know we presently experience in our own Church, do our best, according to the Grace that is given, to share that with others, and leave the matter of the implications our ecclesiology has to the salvation of others in God's hands?
[quote author=Iqbal link=topic=5542.msg79067#msg79067 date=1194193688]
Don't you think it'd be more edifying to just focus on the salvation we know we presently experience in our own Church, do our best, according to the Grace that is given, to share that with others, and leave the matter of the implications our ecclesiology has to the salvation of others in God's hands?
Of course what you say here is correct. It is equally correct for other Christians. The question, in dialogue with other Christian Churches surely becomes one of asking what implications this has for any such dialogue?
Of course, no one has to engage in such dialogues, but since I seem to spend quite a bit of time doing just that, it seems necessary to try to think through a base from which to operate.
Thus, I don't disagree with you or Orthodx11 about the Cyprianist ecclesiology, but when the latter comments in answer to my question about who speaks for his Church he writes something with which you, I, and my RC friend can all agree with: Indeed they do, but let us unpack this for a moment.
We have the same scriptures, the same Apostolic tradition and many of the same Fathers; but the number of Councils we acknowledge are different, as are some of the canons, as is the shape of the Liturgy. Do these differences touch on the matter of our eternal salvation? I presume we think they do. What follows from these differences? That's why this statement, for me, needs further analysis: Are both statements not true?
That takes us to the heart of the notion of relativism. When you write: it seems to me you enter swampy ground. Who decided what is 'rightful'? For myself, I accept the claims of the Coptic Church and therefore, regretfully conclude that the claims of your Church are 'wrongful'; I suspect that you might take precisely the opposite view. To my RC friend, we are both incorrect. To my atheist friends we are all rather silly people arguing over trifles; we probably all think he's wrong! From what vantage point do you get to a position which is true to you and to me? That is what I mean by relativism - the fact that you are right from your side, whilst I am right from mine.
So I do believe in Absolute Truth - in the Person of the Risen Lord as revealed through the Coptic Church, which I recognise as THE Church. It is in the Eucharistic encounter with Him at the altar that that encounter takes place most dramatically and personally, but it is through the traditions and teaching of the Church that I learn how to walk in His way. But then I have to find a way to deal with you and with my RC friend, who make the same claim.
At the end of the day, of course, I do what Iqbal recommends. But I still have to have some answer to the question of whether I do this by simply ignoring the differences between THE Church, which is my Church, and your Church and that of my RC friend, which, on traditional ecclesiology, cannot be the Church at all. If you are not in the Church, and my RC friend is not in the Church, is it not my duty as a loving Christian to tell you this? It is your duty to do the same to me.
But we know, I suspect, where such dialogues lead. Hence we tend to explore what the real disagreements between our Churches are. Should we, as some learned folk have already done, come to the view that these differences between the OO and EO are largely historical, what does that entail when viewing our histories?
The views advanced in my last couple of messages are, of course, speculative, and do not necessarily represent a settled position; indeed, quite the opposite. I can see why Orthodox11 links them to Origen's views of universal salvation, but we ought to remember that those views have been condemned only in so far as the Church has not affirmed they are correct; has it affirmed they are incorrect? (I meant to check up, but having got this far, don't want to risk losing it ... I'm sure Orthodox11 sympathises).
There is a line of thought which, as Fr. John McGuckin has shown in some of his recent writings, might well provide us with a framework for inter-Christian dialogue, as well as dialogue with those outside the Church. Much though my own conservative instincts incline against it, I do wonder whether, in the long ongoing history of our Faith, we are not at some point going to have to engage with some neglected parts of the Patristic heritage? Rather as with the human brain, where we only use a small percentage of its potential, we use only a tiny part of the Patristic heritage. Fr. McGuckin's attempts to access Origen's fertile genius may look like 'liberalism', but it may simply be 'not conservatism'.
Anyway, my friends, this is an interesting discussion, and I look forward to its continuation. I shall add, although I know I do not need to for the two of you, that many of the views I am putting forward are speculative, and are meant as incentives to further discussion; I am mindful of where this can lead - but know that here it will not do so.
I shall, I promise, return to the branch theory - but this is quite long enough.
In Christ,
Anglian
Thanks for your reply. I will reply to the issues you raised in due time, but I just wanted to quickly make a point here:
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5542.msg79070#msg79070 date=1194199350]
Of course what you say here is correct. It is equally correct for other Christians. The question, in dialogue with other Christian Churches surely becomes one of asking what implications this has for any such dialogue?
Of course, no one has to engage in such dialogues, but since I seem to spend quite a bit of time doing just that, it seems necessary to try to think through a base from which to operate.
Without wishing to point any fingers at you personally, it seems to me that this is precisely where the danger of ecumenical dialogue lies. Dialogue for the sake of mutual understanding (and any advancements towards unity that happens as a result of that understanding) is great.
But when such dialogue, and unity of men, becomes a justification for ignoring or changing what one holds to be true, this is when dialogue becomes both irresponsible and dangerous. It is this latter form of ecumenism that has caused such great controversy and widespread condemnation. The late Fr. Arsenia Boca said that this type of ecumenism "is the heresy of all heresies, the fall of the Church through its own servants." I am inclined to agree with him.
I'm not suggesting that dialogue must become monologue. Nor do I believe the circular reasoning of "my church is right because it says so" is helpful. What I'm saying is that any dialogue must be based on the existance of an absolute Truth and remaining faithful to it, and not to create our own 'truths' for the sake of unity.
I sincerely believe honest schism is preferable to false unity.
In XC
The purpose of dialogue is not to convert others; if it were, then the difficulties you are having, which seem to seek as their only resolution some sort of foolproof objective standard by which groups with differing claims can arrive at the absolute truth of the matter, would be perfectly understandeable.
The purpose of dialogue is to create a context in which God is capable of watering, by His Grace, the seeds we plant. That there exist groups with differing claims to what is truth does not undermine, from our perspective, the very real and experienced belief that it is the claim of the Church, which we understanding to be our own communion, which is the only reliable and trustworthy one. Our duty is not to prove that to other people, but to share that experience with others in a way that provokes an inclination or desire to understand and seek the Truth; an inclination and desire that God ultimately works with in His own way.
I am in total agreement with what you (and Orthodox11) write.
I suspect that I am being unclear about what I doing, which is neither aimed at converting anyone, nor yet at establishing some objective standard; indeed, my belief that neither of these things is even possible lies at the heart of the enquiry into the nature of true ecumenism.
Again, I agree that our task is but at some point that 'someone' will have a choice to make. One can say that the Lord will lead him or her, but in my experience that does not quite do to help the anxious enquirer who, seeing EOs and OOs and belonging, by culture and history to neither, asks 'which one?'
It is not false ecumenism, I hope, to want to be able to say something to enquirers in this situation?
In Christ,
Anglian
I do hope that nothing I have written suggests that I hold the view that Of course but how 'honest' is the current schism? Many of the responses to the declarations from the 'unity' dialogue are not responses to what is being said, but a refusal to accept the implications of the view that there are no longer doctrinal grounds for division. That I understand. If there has been a 'misunderstanding' it has implications for the Orthodox on both sides of a needless division. So, this is not about a dichotomy between an honest schism and false unity; indeed it might even be the other way round - honest unity (which would mean repentance from both sides) is preferable to false schism.
Were there a convincing demonstration that the differences between EO and OO were indeed 'honest schism', I would be in entire agreement with you; it is because it seems to me a dishonest schism, powered by human sinfulness and a prideful refusal to repent, that I do not think the ecumenical impulse here anything but honest.
The question of relations with the Roman Catholics is a more difficult one, but it strikes me that Pope Benedict's statement does exactly what you and I would both want - defines honest differences as a means of encouraging dialogue.
Perhaps one should not try to think too far ahead, but Fr. McGuckin's writings on this theme illustrate just the sort of search for an ecclesiological framework which will be necessary if unity talks are to continue. It is in the nature of all intellectual inquiry that there will be suggested roads which turn out to be blocked, but we should not refuse to do the brain work necessary. God works through His creation, and if pious and intelligent Orthodox Christians are trying to recapture some of the intellectual dynamism that once made Orthodoxy the powerhouse of world Christianity, then we have to accept that some of the ideas will make us uncomfortable. Just think how some folk reacted to St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nazianzus.
Our developing understanding of the Faith did not, surely, end in the sixth, ninth or fifteenth century?
In Christ,
Anglian
Of course, and I am not disagreeing with what you say at all. But if (and this happens fairly frequently) someone says 'I understand your own convictions, but here am I looking at 3 Apostolic Churches, why do you say that I should look more seriously at your Church when the EO people I've been taking to say it is schismatic?' That inevitably involves some discussion of ecclesiology, which leads to an interesting place when they tell me that they've had just the same ecclesiological talk with their EO interlocutor.
I guess the fact that most of the people I discuss these things with are middle-aged professional people with some background in theology may influence the direction the discussions take. Do have a look at Fr. McGuckin's latest article on ecclesiology in The International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church volume 6, number 3, 2006; I'd be really interested in your views.
In Christ,
Anglian
There is one Church. If an inquirer asks me about my faith, I make it clear that there is one Church. If they tell me that they have heard such from a number of persons from a number of different communions and they would like to discern which claim is the rightful claim, I give them a defence for the hope that is in me, and advise them to do their part by establishing a spiritual context in which God can complete their conversion His own way. What is wrong with this scenario? If the problem is with that final element which requires the awaiting of God's intervention, all I can say is that is a problem that has nothing to do with traditional ecclesiology—that is simply how God operates.
I will look up and read the article you recommend some time next week after my exams.
First, best of luck with the exams.
When you write that wasn't at all what I was saying, indeed, it was quite the opposite. What I was implying was that because the people I talk to have complicated ways of coming at this, that did, indeed, make what can be a simple situation complex; so I actually agree with you, and don't at all think you are being simplistic.
Those coming towards Orthodoxy from another Christian background are usually more than familiar with the traditional ecclesiology, and more often than not they don't disagree with it; indeed, it is precisely because they take it deadly seriously that they feel the need to know which is THE Church.
In the end, of course the scenario you outline is the one that has to operate, but there is often a very long time between an individual becoming disillusioned with where he/she is and their deciding to become a catechumen. It is out of such discussions that the questions I am discussing tend to arise.
In another forum an other poster has put it more eloquently than I can manage: That last part really strikes home, as does the phrase about the 'human perception'.
In Christ,
Anglian
I promised to say something on the branch theory and on the difference between that and the speculative thoughts in one of the earlier posts, and having a little time unexpectedly, I thought I'd do so now.
The 'branch theory' posits the view that there was a single undivided Church before 451 A.D., but that since then the 'tree' that is the Church has developed various 'branches'. One of these would be the OO family, another the EO family, a third the RC's, and finally, the many branches of the Protestant Churches. In some variations only those Protestant Churches with a claim to Apostolic foundation (the Anglicans and the Lutherans) would be included.
It is a way of trying to explain how, despite His command that we should 'be one' there are so many 'Churches' confessing His name.
The iconography, liturgical life, Creeds and dogmatic believing of the ancient Church came down to us in forms at once Eastern and Western; this rich unity of patristic culture, expressing as it did the faith of the apostolic community was shattered by the schism between Catholics and Orthodox, even as it had earlier been damaged by Chalcedon. Catholics, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox all claim the exclusive title of THE Church - yet each of them inherits the same rich patristic culture, whilst claiming that only one of them possesses the 'fullness of the Faith'.
Against this backcloth it seems to me that the metaphor of the tree is fatally flawed - although one can see its point. What we are really talking about are the iconography, liturgical life, creeds and dogmas of the early Church which each of the modern Apostolic Churches claims to be the whole of.
There are some Catholic writers who have the humility (often wanting in all three Churches) to acknowledge that after 1054 (and I quote one): We can claim that the OO, the EO or the RCs do indeed possess the 'total cultural patrimony', but that is where we will disagree; my Catholic source (Fr. Aidan Nichols) evinces a humility from which we could all learn. Taking the same line as Pope Benedict takes in the CDF document, Fr. Aidan states: He goers on to write: What we find on examination is that the OO, the EO and the RCs are all liturgical, dogmatic and monastic Churches; all confess the Nicene Creed; all recognise the same Christology (even if the EO and the OO won't always admit it); all recognise that there are some real differences between them.
It seems to me that we need an ecclesiology which says something about the common patristic and dogmatic inheritance as well as speaking to the differences. There is no inherent reason why St. Cyprian's ecclesiology cannot do this - just that we usually stress the boundaries. Of course, St. Cyprian did not have to deal with a situation where three Churches, all with a claim to part of the common patristic inheritance, would claim it all for more than a millennium and a half; that is our task - if we can embrace it.
'Branches' won't do, and it may be that Fr. John McGuckin's speculations won't either - but it seems good that some Orthodox theologians should be meditating on this matter.
As we have no examples of how such schisms can be healed - since they never have been - it may be rank optimism to think they can - but His command is there - and we ignore it at our peril - surely?
In Christ,
Anglian
Ecumenists usually hate his name because his apostolic and sound Orthodox ecclesiology puts them to shame. It should be noted that the branch theory has no foundation in the Apostolic teachings or in the Fathers, it is only found in modern false ecumenists who use the quotes of the likes of Kallistos Ware and Bulgakov among other ecumenical figures to impose some kind of Orthodoxy on their approach. One can site Ignatius, Ambrose, Augustine, Cyprian, Hippolytus as direct witness to the faith as well as the struggle of Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscoros, Severus and Timothy against the heretics as a living and practical witness to the boundaries of the Church.
The choice of the 451 a.d. as the date for the branches to begin developing is clearly arbitrarly to suit current, 40-year old, ecumenical efforts that have the potential to develop into a full communion. There is nothing sound dogmatic reason behind it but it is pure business and politics.
What about choosing 325 a.d. as a method to include Arians in the Church? Or maybe 431 a.d. with regard to the Nestorians which is an identical situation to the Chalcedonians yet personal interests have moved the date 20 years afterwards to allow for ecumenical hypocrisy to fully develop.
A tree is identified by its fruits, which clearly differs from the orthodox Church to the Chalcedonians, Latins and Protestants with their 33,000 denominations. It is not characteristic of a tree to persecute its own as the Chalcedonians did to the Orthodox for 200 years until the Islamic conquest took over.
What is being said agrees that there is no merit in the 'branch' theory; I was trying to answer Orthodox 11's perfectly reasonable question as to how what I was saying earlier differed from it.
If one holds that 'by their fruits shall ye know them', then the fruits of the Christian schism are indeed bitter. St. Cyprian did not have to deal with a situation in which after more than a thousand years separate Churches, each claiming Apostolicity and martyrs continued to exist.
Of course 'false' ecumenists dislike traditional ecclesiology - but it is worth noting that the RCs and the EOs have exactly the same ecclesiology as we do. If one holds that all ecumenism is false then fair enough; but if one holds that His command that they might all be one is to be taken seriously, one has to find a language in which to describe what we have in common as well as what separates us.
This is not a plea - for indifferentism. I hold very deeply the view that the Coptic Church is THE Church against which the gates of hades will not prevail. But if I am asked to believe that it holds the whole patristic heritage east and west, then it gives me pause for thought. We, as Oriental Orthodox take on board the insights of Maximos the Confessor, and yet we know his views on the non-Chalcedonians. We hold St. Isaac the Syrian to be a saint, and yet he was a bishop in a Church our forefathers thought Nestorian. These things suggest a wider reading of what it is to be 'the Church'. The nature of that reading might benefit from some clarification and a language in which it can be expressed.
But, on the branch theory, any criticisms are fine, because I do not think it a tenable position.
Hope that clears things up a mite.
In Christ,
Anglican
John,
Thank you for sharing this quote with us: It is truly full of wisdom and definitely should give all of us pause for contemplation.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thess_conclusions.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-RdNeKlFs8
The Vigilant Orthodoxy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EldFCZjuNBc
I chose them because they are in English, clear enough and not specific to our COC and I couldn't possibly express all these info and details in good accuracy.
Ecumenism could become a very dangerous and deceptive situation. It paves the way for the undermining of true Orthodoxy, and eventually - at the end of days - to some formula of a religious pluralism.
GBU
http://www.worldslastchance.com/full_article.php
I found myself curious about their interpreted solution for the "mysterious number 666",
http://www.worldslastchance.com/images/Vicarius_english.gif
We have real facts about some problems about the RCC without succumbing to the reckless and deceitful views by the equally if not more so blind Reformists.
They talk evily of an elder of the people- of the Roman pontiff no-less. We should not entertain their disregard for Christ's anointed.
Indeed. I would endorse your comments.
It might also be worth while pointing out that if one looks up Copts on the Orthodoxinfo site it still accuses of of being Monophysites, so it is not a site from which I would care to take anything away other than the impression that it is written by a convert who seems to have a very narrow view of the Church.
In Christ,
Anglian
Orthodoxinfo website and the youtube videos are wrong in their conclusion that the Chalcedonian church has any part in the Apostolic Tradition, something that was denied to them since they fell into Nestorianism in Chalcedon by the mouth of Dioscoros, Severus, Timothy, Theodosius, Acacius, and the rest of the Church for the past 16 centuries. The fact that they regard the Orthodox and Monophysite is unfortunate and very wrong and needs a lot of prayers to enlighten those who are blind yet have excellent intentions. The article is fine if reversed in this regard and would have been written by an Orthodox.
Yet their approach is indeed orthodox. There is but one Church and there is no narrow or broad view when it comes to the Church. There is "no salvation outside the Church" and it stands at that.
Although we Orthodox do not give much attention about the literal interpretation of the book of revelation, the one thing that is important to know is that Ecumenism indeed paves the way to the World order that will help the Anti-Christ rule. It is not bad intentions necessarily that makes an Orthodox participate in heretical meetings, and I attended those and they are nothing but heresies, it is ignorance and dishonesty.
I suspect that our friend Orthodox 11 might agree on only part of your statement.
In Christ,
Anglian