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

No, dear, with all due respect. The view you describe is not the authentically "earlier, patristic" view. It is the Donatist view. There's a difference.

I've heard this pro-Donatist argument a lot lately, and it simply blows my mind. :p

To describe Donatism as the "earlier, patristic" (and hence presumably more authentic?) doctrine is like describing Arianism as the "earlier, patristic doctrine" later corrupted by that silly Trinitarian stuff!

Some "early" ideas were supplanted NOT because they fell prey to those Bad Westerners but rather because they were wrong. They were, in fact, heresies. :p Donatism was one of them.

There's a reason why the response to Donatism arose when it did...there's a reason why the alternative to Donatism crystallized when and how it did. The Holy Spirit was guiding the Church in its developing understanding of the Depositum Fidei. As Newman put it, "No doctrine is defined till it is violated."

Blessings,

ZT

It is precisely these types of arguments that lead me to my unfortunate opinion that Apostolic Unity is far off in nether land. Father Alexander Schmemann is totally correct! “Eucharistic unity” is sound and sensible and a Universal Head is not needed nor is it desired. In my understanding an Orthodox in Communion with Rome is based on a Eucharistic relation.

I am sorry but lack of a Pope has not caused any jurisdictional chaos for us. It is paternalistic not to mention incorrect to suggest otherwise.

After Chanceldon our Church split from the rest of Orthodoxy and stayed split. But it our Churches then stayed united throughout these millennia. In contrast the other side led to Eastern Orthodoxy----then to Catholicism---then to Protestantism----then to Pentecostalism----then the rest is history.

Our heresies cease, our heretics are defeated, AND THEN RE-INCORPORATED back into the Church. You can go to many of our Churches that were at one time the hot seat of heretical discourses. They have hardly ever, if ever at all, broken off to become a separate Church.

Most (though not all) of our schisms and turbulence is due to the efforts of Latin Catholic Missionaries. The Indian Church was led into disarray. By whom? The Catholics and the Protestants that's who! (I know Mor Ephrem does not entirely agree with this view; but reading the little that I have I can am not convinced other wise. This is also what official Indian Church leaders say.) So when viewed against history how can it be maintained that jurisdictional chaos is a result from the lack of a Pope; when it was the Vatican itself that led to so much Chaos? In fact there is a funny anecdote in Indian History about when the Portuguese first arrived they were outraged by some "arrogant' people who had been Christians since the beginning but insist that they never heard of the Pope!

Our relationship with the Alexandrian Pope speaks millions. He is given primacy of honor between all of our Patriarchs and his wisdom is sought after frequently and his advice listened to. But his advice is not dogma; it is spiritual advice from a wise father (trust me HE IS a wise father). It doesn't go beyond that.

I am suspicious of the hidden agendas of people who argue about how we need to submit to the infallibility of a Pope. I know this is one of the issues but there are others as well. Christology, rules of Communion, Baptismal rites, Liturgical wording, etc. With a variety of issues such as these to be discussed why is it the infatuation with everyone to always be talking about how we need to have some one preside over our internal affairs as a precondition to unity?

Is this about power or is it about Christ?

Should we have submitted to Pope Pious the 11th as he blessed the army of Mussolini while marching in Rome in order to attack Christian Ethiopia? What about when the orders of the fascists were to kill anyone wearing the Cross (in contrast Muslims were left alone for some time)? What about when they dropped Mustard gas on several Ethiopian Monasteries (without a word from the Vatican) eventually killing thousands. Oh, and before anyone tries to rationalize this failure to act let me ask you something. When our Patriarch takes his seat he pledges to go to martyrdom rather than collaborate with an enemy of the faith. Two of our Ethiopian Bishops were executed for refusing collaboration. One that did was excommunicated. Does not the Vatican Pope make such a pledge?

Excuse me if I question the wisdom of people who let these kinds of things happen. Excuse me for failing to see that they are infallible on anything let alone dogma. Excuse me for suggesting that he is a human being and like any other makes mistakes. Excuse me for reiterating that we will join in Communion with a the Vatican Pope as an honorable Patriarch and not under the basis of an imperial papacy.

Also, just from my observations of how the Vatican treats these Orthodox in Communion with them (be they Byzantines or others), I am not sure that it looks promising

Just my two santeme.

Aklie,

No one says the Vatican or the Pope is perfect. OF COURSE he is human. He's not impeccable, he's infallible when declaring a doctrine ex cathedra, if you want the simple Catholic stance on it. There have been some no-good-rotten popes in the past 2000 years, but that doesn't impede the Holy Spirit from acting through them.

ChristTeen287

P.S. - I suppose schism looks more promising than and imperfect yet improving union. God bless the courage of the OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome.

ChristTeen287

Yes, thank God for courage of the Orthodox in Communion with Rome folks. But until they are treated better by the Vatican the rest of us Orthodox not in Communion with them will have to take the unity question skeptically. Not to mention that there are other issues that needs to be resolved, including Papal Infallibility—ex cathedra or otherwise.

Another thing, I have not read the book of Acts in its entirety for a while but as far as I can remember St. Peter was in Antioch when the Jerusalem Synod issued its ruling about Christian dietary rules, the gentiles, etc. This ruling was directed to problems that arose in Antioch. According to Paul, Peter himself was part of the problem at Antioch (part of the "hypocrisy' in Paul's own term).Peter submitted to the Jerusalem synod's ruling on Antioch. He did not issue any Papal bulls or ex cathedra (as if he knew how to say that Latin term anyway) so it is probable that he did not think of himself in that fashion.

Anyway, I have no fears. I AM in communion with the See of Peter because I am in communion with His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka Ivas I, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East. This is where Peter was FIRST a Bishop at and thus H.H. Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka is Peter's successor. :p

Selam Aklile!

Actually, the view I agree with (but never impose on others - I'm just one of those "live and let live" kind of guys ) is that St Peter was never a bishop anywhere, but did consecrate the first bishops of Antioch, Rome and Alexandria (through his secretary, St Mark).

As an Apostle, he had all episcopal powers (he was very close to the Apostolic Succession I think . . .).

But he had to move around and preach while a bishop is someone who is stationary in a city etc.

The entire episcopate is the successor to St Peter and the Apostles.

And when we confess Jesus to be the "Christ, the Son of the Living God" we too become "Peter."

Alex

Thank you Alex, I think this is an excellent explanation! But I don't think many people, especially Latins, will go along with it unfortunately.

But he had to move around and preach while a bishop is someone who is stationary in a city etc.

But are we entirely sure that Peter did much preaching? It is my impression from reading historians (and I know that is a bad habit but I can't help it; I am a confessed history addict) that as far as the “Gospel of the un-circumcised” Peter was more of a pastoral father figure who probably didn't say much (we know he didn't like to write much as he ends his epistles usually with "I don't wish to write anymore I will just tell you in person' type of statement). He probably most likely performed the Sacraments, Baptisms, and the consecrations of Churches. Paul was the teacher and the evangelist in the strict since of the term. I even read some historians that suggest that Peter was quiet because of his linguistic difficulties while Paul was the articulate Roman citizen of Hebrew descent.

Dear ZT:

Before I respond, please define for me your understanding of exactly what donatism is, and how the view I espoused is Donatist. I showed the post to a professor here at St. Vlad's and he said it was not donatistic. So let's get the terms and definitions straight, so that when we discuss how the Orthodox view on ordinations might be donatistic, we do not speak past one another.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Aklile,

Well, RC's I've spoken to will agree to this if only we agree to the Pope's position vis a vis Peter etc.

If we accept that, they're open to all else!

Peter did visit many, many villages and towns, as well as Antioch, Alexandria (through Mark - who did everything in Peter's name) and Rome, where he consecrated bishops for the local Churches.

That was his mission and the mission of all the Apostles and their followers, as you know.

He may have slowed down as he grew older, but he was still on the move .

He must have been a formidable force in the Christian Church, judging by the way the Romans sought him out to kill him.

Rome always did consider Peter and Paul to have been the founders of the Church at Rome and its chief Apostolic patrons.

The story of Peter's martyrdom is telling. He is actually asked by Christians in Rome to leave as he was being sought after.

There was therefore a sense among the Christians at Rome that Peter did not belong solely to the Church of Rome, but to the Church throughout the world.

Alex

Dear Alex:

And while trying to flee Rome for the last time, Peter met the resurrected Jesus along the way out and was asked: "Quo vadis, Peter?"

Peter responded: "How about you, Lord?"

And Jesus said: "I am going to Rome to be crucified again!"

So, the story goes that Peter returned to Rome in haste and, thereafter, was himself crucified head down.

AmdG

anastasios:

ZoeT surely will have extreme difficulty in defining "donastism(sic)"!

AmdG

Amado, you are right! the keyboard on which I was typing was sticking and I was in a rush during a break between classes!

In Christ,

anastasios

I agree with you, Anastasios - "show me" the Donatism (I was born in Missouri, after all )

Alex - I am all over your view on Peter. You and Aklie are hitting on some good points. We need to hear his Oriental Orthodox position more often around here. (Some Ethiopian food would be great, also )

And as an Orthodox in communion with Rome, I see nothing wrong with Father Alexander of blessed memory's position at all. In fact, I think the entire Church would do well to study and discern the words of perhaps one of if not the premier liturgical theologian of the century.

Aklie, I am quoting a Catholic apologist concerning what you cited about Pope St. Peter. I'm not really sure what you were trying to get at with the hypocrisy/St. Paul thing, and I don't know how much this helps.

ChristTeen287