Ecclesiology of Romanides and Florovsky

[Gregory]

My friend recently sent me some articles by Romanides and Florovsky concerning their views on ecclesiology.

After reading them, I concluded that they both have somewhat of a similar approach, yet they leave many questions unanswered. They state that the Church is therapeutic in nature and once a church is no longer therapeutic in nature, it ceases to be the Church. This is fine, but so many churches take this position. Roman Catholics could, at some level, claim the same thing. I guess Florovsky takes an Augustianian approach and perhaps so does Romanides.

Am I understanding these writers correctly?

Gregory

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Gregory,

You of course know my position and while it is not my comments you are probably interested in, I would like to make one, and it doesn't even address your question.

If there is such a thought that says the church ceases to be the Church ONLY when it is no longer therapeutic in nature, then that is a new doctrine completley foreign to Orthodoxy. Because based on this, one must conclude that the Monophysites, the Nestorians, the Donatists, the Montanists, ect, ect, ect, were never outside the Church, but were just a divided "branch" - ie. Ecumenism. And not only that, but the anathemas of the Church fall on the heads of the Orthodox!

It never ceases to amaze me as to what great lengths the defenders of new-calendarism will go to find some "theological" argument to justify themselves. One place they can never look is to the Holy Fathers, for they have been clear and unambiguous, which is not common among to many things in Orthodoxy. So these defenders are left with sophisms, new thinking, and nothing much else other than playing on peoples fear that the Orthodox are "schismatic" because we are small, and they are big.

[Gregory]

OOD --

You of course know my position and while it is not my comments you are probably interested in, I would like to make one, and it doesn't even address your question.

I am interested in everyone's opinion.

If there is such a thought that says the church ceases to be the Church ONLY when it is no longer therapeutic in nature, then that is a new doctrine completley foreign to Orthodoxy.

Correct, depending upon what one understands the meaning of "therapeutic" to be. For instance, if the Church is the ark of our salvation, so to speak, then the ark must be therapeutic in nature since we are sinful and the Church aids us (therapy) on the road to holiness. If a church strays from the teachings of the Fathers, canons, praxis, then this church is no longer therapeutic in nature and, hence, no longer Orthodox.

If this is their view, then I think that this is a reasonable Orthodox understanding for a starting point only. But it still leaves a great deal unanswered. It is a nice theory, but the Church lives within history and must address historical events.

Perhaps I don't understand the points that Romanides and Florovsky were making and that is why I asked the question. Perhaps they viewed Church history as too murky and this position fit nicely since it does not have to, by necessity, fit within the confines of history.

Gregory

[Justin Kissel]

Gregory,

I've read some of both, but both leave me puzzled. They both seem conservative--some would even say traditionalist--but they also have their ecumenical side. I know that Fr. Romanides wrote several articles contra Augustinian beliefs, though I guess that doesn't mean he couldn't have been "Augustinian" in some of his thought--though I'm not quite sure what that would mean in this context I tend to like the Church=Hospital ecclesiological principles... but much like salvation, Orthodox belief is not summed up in only one metaphor or analogy or whatever.

One of the mistakes that Protestants make is that they take the various aspects of salvation (the parables, the theological principles of Paul, etc.) and try to smush them into one, simple theory; they then attempt to explain all the passages working from that artificially constructed foundation. In reality, while all the various stories and teachings do not contradict one another, neither can they necessarily be neatly reconciled so that you are left with a one sentence explanation of the whole of the gospel and salvation. I think that we could say the same thing about ecclesiology... it is good to emphasise Church as hospital, or Church as Ark of Salvation, or Church as Pillar of Truth... but these are only certain portions of the whole, and to emphasise one too greatly will only bring you to a distorted perspective. The Fathers do not focus too much one any one particular perspective on the Church, and I think that is significant.

I've not read enough of Fr. Romanides to know about him, though from what little I've read of Fr. Georges he doesn't seem to fall into this trap. Indeed, all that I've said was probably influenced by him, as I've found him to be very insightful. I'm not sure if that helps, but there it is, for what it's worth.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Once again I am put to shame by Justin. I also agree with your appendage to my post Gregory. I'll crawl back to my hole now.

[Ioannes72]

My friend recently sent me some articles by Romanides and Florovsky concerning their views on ecclesiology.

After reading them, I concluded that they both have somewhat of a similar approach, yet they leave many questions unanswered. They state that the Church is therapeutic in nature and once a church is no longer therapeutic in nature, it ceases to be the Church. This is fine, but so many churches take this position. Roman Catholics could, at some level, claim the same thing. I guess Florovsky takes an Augustianian approach and perhaps so does Romanides.

Am I understanding these writers correctly?

Gregory

Brother in Christ Gregory,

I cannot compare the writings of Fr. John Romanides with Fr. George Florovsky, since I am not very familiar with the latter's writings. Speaking of Romanides, what you have presented above is a gross oversimplification. I suggest that if you want to understand Fr. John's writings, you can find most of his articles at www.romanity.org.

Speaking of Romanides, when he says that the Church by nature is therapeutic, he is speaking about what the purpose and mission of the Church is -- to return fallen man to his state before the fall. The purpose of the Church is to guide its members on the path of purification, illumination, and deificaiton (theosis). And this path of purification, illumination, and deification is the path of our Holy Fathers and the Patrisitic-Hesychastic tradition of our Church. Not only is this is the purpose of the Church, but illumination and deification is impossible outside the Church.

It is in this context Fr. John's ecclesiology is rooted -- that the criteria of the true Church is where there are found illumined and deified people, namely the Saints. This does not allow for any of the heterodox to claim they have the True Church. For one, they no longer believe in the Patrisitic understanding of theosis or, if they do, their idea of it is very distorted. Second, they have ceased to produce living Saints according to the criteria of Orthodoxy.

To look at two examples in our own century, St. John of San Francisco and St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, having attained to such high levels of Grace during their lifetimes through the purification of their souls from the passions, God's Grace remained in their bodies after their repose, resulting in the heavenly fragrance and incorruptiblity of their relics. It is impossible for someone to attain this Holiness outside of the Church. And their very existence proves that the Churches they belonged to were part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

This is how I understand the writings of Fr. John Romanides. And this understanding is definitely not Augustinian nor scholastic.

In Christ,
Ioannes

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Ioannis,

I think Gregory's question took the premise that while what you said is true, did John Romanides say as long as a group was seen as being "therapeutic", it would necessitate that we see them as being the true church of Christ.

Of course "therapeutic" would have to be defined as something less than the Holy Mysteries, since the Holy Mysteries are of course "therapeutic". Therefore I think the real question is, does John Romanides say that groups that "look" like and have the "appearance of" having people who are pious mean we must see them as being the true Church?