www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Father Alexander Schmemann on papacy

Hello:

The Oriental Orthodox Communion is something very hard to define and even harder to understand, at least for us Western Catholics who like to see some sort of visible forms and expressions of unity.

Not all those groups are in full communion with one another, and more than one of them *DO* claim universality and supremacy:

The official title for the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch is: Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church

The official title for the Armenian Apostolic Catholicos-Patriarch is: Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians

Shalom,
Memo.

Not if one drops the infatuation with legalism and the need for strict definitions. We don't ever want our Churches to fall into that sort of discourse. The manifestation of our unity may not be good for Roman Catholics but it is good for us and that is what counts.

Our unity is based on a rejection of Chanceldon if that makes it easier for you.

Western Catholics who like to see some sort of visible forms and expressions of unity.

I suppose that is the problem; western fixation with things you can see, touch, hear and smell. Our unity is a spiritually based Eucharistic unity; it is bound to the invisible mystery of the Holy Eucharist. We used to have a formal office of this association but it was closed after the 1974/5 Ethiopian Revolution.

If God is willing we will reinstitute this organization, not because we need to show others our unity but, because we have work to do and need a unified structure to co-ordinate our efforts.

Not all those groups are in full communion with one another, and more than one of them *DO* claim universality and supremacy

True enough and as we mentioned earlier most of this is a by-product of the Vatican interfering in our internal affairs.

Then, if we are going to have a Universal Eucharistic Unity, we would need a "main celebrator" at the Universal level, wouldn't we?

Shalom,
Memo.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but not a Supreme Monarch over all the bishops

Brian

The Oriental Orthodox Communion is something very hard to define and even harder to understand, at least for us Western Catholics who like to see some sort of visible forms and expressions of unity.

See Aklie.

Not all those groups are in full communion with one another, and more than one of them *DO* claim universality and supremacy:

The official title for the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch is: Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, Supreme Head of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church

The official title for the Armenian Apostolic Catholicos-Patriarch is: Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians

Again, see Aklie. The reason for the jurisdictional problems in India is in great part because of the influence of particularly Roman Catholic ideas entering into the Patriarchate of Antioch subsequent to the consecration as Patriarch of a Roman Catholic convert cleric to Orthodoxy soon after his conversion and developing over time, with the vocal support of various Catholic Churches. This jurisdictional problem and others also wouldn't have occurred in the first place had the Roman Catholic Portuguese not tried to either bring us under Roman control or kill us, or both.

The title for the Patriarch of Antioch that you cite is a recent innovation based on those very same RC notions. I covered all this in some depth on another thread.

The Catholicos of Etchmiadzin is the Catholicos of all Armenians. The reason for the "Supreme", if I'm not mistaken, is because of an internal dispute in which the Catholicosate of Cilicia is claiming more than its share.

Both? Did we Dastardly Papists subjugate y'all while we were killing you, or before, or afterward? Once y'all were dead, were you still under Roman Control?

Scratching head here while bemusedly observing all the convoluted efforts to deny the plain fact that there are jurisdictional conflicts in Orthodoxy.... :p

ZT

No, because each diocese is the universal church in its fullness. The various dioceses are not "parts" adding up to a whole. Each bishop sits in the place of Christ. The common faith and communion between bishops is what establishes the unity of a mulitiplicity of Churches.

Please read "Being as Communion" and "the Primacy of Peter" both published by SVS press to better understand Eucharistic ecclesiology.

In Christ,

anastasios

It had never occured to me before but it's hard not to be convinced by the evidence of Aklie & Mor Ephr.
1. The Miaphysite Churches [is that a correct term?] are all autocephalous without any 1 Patriarch claiming primacy over the entire group [not even symbolic, not even "primus inter pares"].

2. They are in Communion one with another & have been for many, many years.

3. This inter-Communion of these Churches has not had significant problems, thus far {as far as I know} [no more than the Orthodox or the Catholics].

Ergo:
4. Q.E.D. seems to me.

What a great insight! I can't think that I had not seen this before, except that I committed the same error that I ascribed to Vladyka Avery (Dulles SJ) [on the thread pertaining to his statement] - i.e. the Oriental Orthodox not being on my "radar screen" [even though theoretically they were] and an over focus on the Orthodox [which is understandable given that New Rome is the mother Church for some of us, "understandable" but not correct].

The implications for ecumenism are rather startling.

So the Oriental Orth. might very well be a key player in Christian unity:

- not only given that they are closer to "both sides" that either side are to each other. That is that they have close relations to the Catholic Communion and close relations to the Orthodox Communion; so when the Catholic Communion re-establishes Communion with the Oriental Orth. and the Orthodox re-establish Communion with the Orientals, then ....

- but now their ecclesial structure, clearly demonstrated by their praxis [as seen above and explained by A & M] gives a whole new approach to the issue of Petrine primacy!

- and I am not now too convinced by the line of argumentation whereby "you need us because only we can prevent schism and ensure unity", since they have a unity and our Petrine Primacy did not prevent us from having problems.

- having said that, I own that I am still convinced that a central role of the Patriarch of Older Rome is the pastoral care of inter-ecclesial Christian unity. The question is how, and that has not been resolved yet, NOT EVEN BY THE LATIN PATRIARCH HIMSELF! But is a question still "in process".

- one 1 hand, it seems that one should not just say: "submit to us and our way" [neither the Catholics to the Orthdox, Nor the Orthodox to the Catholics]

- on the other hand, one should not say: we are self sufficient and complete in our selves and we are not interested in you. [and moreover you have exclused yourselves from our Self Sufficiency, so tough luck on you!]"

- What I would suggest as a Very Interesting approach to ecumenism is by way of a concept used by an Orthodox poster, that of the "Lost Patriarchate". How can the Orthodox & Oriental Orthodox "refind", "reintegrate", reconcile with the "Lost Patriarchate" - that of Older Rome. Which is in some sense exactly what the Pope of Older Rome has when in putting the question out to the Orthodox to "weigh in" on how they would see Petrine primacy, really functioning and yet really ensuring the autonomy and autocephality of each Church.

- perhaps that would be another and concommitant responsibility of Older Rome's Petrine Primacy - the nurture and maintenance of the Churches' autocephality [as well as their unity]?

herb.

ps: Does the term "Oriental Orthodox" include the Assyrian/Chaldean "Great Church of the East". While technically non-Chacedonian, they are not Miaphysite. Are they on anyone's radar screen and what approach or insight does their perspective offer? Are they in dialogue with the Miaphysite Churches.

pps: How does [and what are some examples of] inter-ecclesial action within the Miaphysite Communion? Are there inter-ecclesial general councils, etc.???

Hello:

But if it's so wrong, then why would the Syriac Orthodox commit the same mistakes that we do?

Which actually makes the original point about jurisdictional chaos quite nicely.

Wherever you have jurisdictions without a supreme authority, there will be jurisdictional chaos.

I am pretty sure that this is NOT what Christ wants for His Church.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear ChristTeen,

My buddy, Anastasius, is right!

And even if one could find a quote from an EP - I believe there is - it would only be seen as his own opinion that would not apply to the rest of the Orthodox Church. The Russian Church certainly never accepted the idea that the Anglicans ever held valid orders.

Alex

It wasn't all that long ago when a Russian Orthodox bishop in Siberia ordered all of Schmemann's books burned because they were "tained with papism". He, Meyendorff and Afanasiev have all recognized the need for primacy in Orthodoxy. However, primacy and supremacy are two different concepts.

For me, it was Father Alexander that opened up my eyes to a different way of sacramental thought after reading him for the first time now many years ago. It was a complete and welcome departure from the regurgitory Baltimore Catechism approach I had learned when younger. I pray to Father Alexander for his intercession.

Dear Zoe,

You are free to believe that everything I'm saying is an attempt to avoid the "jurisdictional chaos" in Orthodoxy, just as I'm free (for argument's sake, if for no other reason) to believe that the Roman emphasis on jurisdictional unity being the important thing is an attempt to whitewash the tomb of widespread theological confusion and disunity in faith afflicting the Church of Rome.

But what you wrote above is simply too silly to deserve even an attempt at a serious response.

If you are really interested in the history of the Indian Church, I will look for books printed in the English language for you to read. If you feel up to a greater challenge, I invite you to learn the Malayalam language of our people and then read as many books as you want.

But, and I can't emphasise this enough, what you wrote above deserves absolutely no reply. That I've spoken this long is because I try to be a patient person.

I would simply submit here that unity in the faith is more important than jurisdictional unity, although I am not saying the latter is not important (the proper mode of jurisdictional unity being up for debate between Catholics and Orthodox). When nearly three fourths of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and yet because they at least nominally agree that the Pope is the Head of the Church that is not seen as a problem of unity*, I would not judge the Oriental Orthodox Churches for any perceived jurisdictional disunity. For all our squabbles, even those that may not have been the result of our contacts with "Father Rome", we have preserved the true faith. The same cannot be said of Catholicism. The Eucharistic doubt thing is just one example.

*Recently, I saw this played out in real life. In a discussion of medieval Christian beliefs as a prelude to our class in Medieval Literature, the professor gave an explanation of Catholic Eucharistic belief (an amateur attempt, but an orthodox one). She presented the teaching, and it was those students in the class who identified themselves as Roman Catholic who stood up and said they had never heard of that belief, that such was a silly thing to believe, it makes no sense, it can't be true, must be medieval piety, etc., etc. I was the only one to stand up and say this remains the teaching of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and upon confirming for someone that I believed this, some of those same Roman Catholics chuckled amongst themselves.

That's a problem, a major, major, major problem, but it isn't an Orthodox one. Let us settle any of the jurisdictional issues that you perceive to be because we don't have a CEO, and you guys worry about your own issues...you need to return to the belief and practice of the faith.

1. The Miaphysite Churches [is that a correct term?] are all autocephalous without any 1 Patriarch claiming primacy over the entire group [not even symbolic, not even "primus inter pares"].

To be fair, there is a primus inter pares, and that's the Pope of Alexandria. But, to my knowledge, he doesn't even have all the powers that I think the EP might have.

With that said, and with the qualifier that the Assyrian Church of the East is not Oriental Orthodox, although they are non-Chalcedonian (I actually think they may agree with Chalcedon, so perhaps the better term is non-Ephesine?), I am for the most part in agreement with the other things you've said. Thank you for your refreshing insights, Herb.

Dear Qathuliqa,

If you are still speaking to me, I agree that despite Papal primacy in the Latin Church, there is a lot of doctrinal disagreement going on notwithstanding.

The idea that a Pope is needed to keep everyone "honest" with respect to faith and morals is truly passe.

The Orthodox Churches of the East with their emphasis on local autonomy via Patriarchal authority especially demonstrate a much more Patristic and conservative dedication to the faith of Christ without wavering or innovationism.

The Oriental Orthodox Churches especially have kept their High Christology in tact and the current ecumenical discussions with the Eastern Orthodox Churches (who are mistaken if they think they are the only Orthodox ones)show how much the OO can teach and how much of their dynamism is needed in contemporary perspectives and praxis on evangelization and witnessing to Christ.

Alex

But if it's so wrong, then why would the Syriac Orthodox commit the same mistakes that we do?

If you knew the history of the Church in India, especially in the past hundred years, you would know why. I've explained parts of it in different posts in other threads. I don't remember where off hand, but I recommend you check those out if you haven't already.

Which actually makes the original point about jurisdictional chaos quite nicely.

Wherever you have jurisdictions without a supreme authority, there will be jurisdictional chaos.

I am pretty sure that this is NOT what Christ wants for His Church.

Jurisdictional chaos is one thing, and yes, Christ does not want that for His Church. But neither does he want doctrinal disunity, which is an even deeper disunity than simple jurisdictional issues. And the West is unrivaled in this type of disunity.

Hello:

Of course.

Well, let's assume that this is true, which I think it isn't, after all "The West" is larger than North America, but let's just pretend.

1. Why would this doctrinal disunity be the fault of the Papacy?

2. Wouldn't it be an even stronger argument FOR the Papacy? If we are this way WITH a Universal authority with full powers to define and "enforce" doctrine, imagine what would "the West" be WITHOUT such an institution!

Or better yet, don't imagine at all, just take a look at what happened with the groups that severed communion with Rome after the so-called "Reformation".

A strong Papacy has a real change to get rid of both doctrinal and jurisdictional dissent. It *is* a good thing. Authority *is* a gift from God.

Shalom,
Memo.