Ecclesiology of Romanides and Florovsky

[Ioannes72]

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".

Does it have to be? And why? For Fr. John Romanides, "therapeutic" is not defined as something less than Holy Mysteries, nor is it defined apart from the Mysteries. "Therapeutic" for him must include all the Mysteries of the Church, as well as the ascetical life, which, according to the Holy Fathers, is the prerequisite for participating in the sacramental life of the Church.

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?

I would say the answer is definitely no. Fr. John Romanides never speaks about "pious" or "religious" people indicating where the true Church lies. He speaks instead about Orthodox Sanctity as a criterion. Orthodox sanctity, unlike its Western counterparts, is something that is verifiable. It does not rely on emotional or superficial appearances. That is why the Orthodox Church does not create Saints, but only recognizes those who God has already manifested to be Saints through their numerous miracles, incorruptiblity of relics, etc. This, for Fr. John, is a criterion of where the true Church exits.

Ioannes

[Gregory]

Dear Ioannes --

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.

Perhaps I am dense, but this is just too broad an outline. While on the surface this is true and the Church contains those who have been illumined and deified. However, WHICH church or churches are we speaking about? One cannot talk about "the Church" without being able to refer to actual churches. Of course the saints are the "products" of the Church, no one would deny that and many churches that call themselves Christian believe this. So, which churches are "the Church"?

At the end of the day, and at the very least, any talk about ecclesiology must refer back to a profession of Faith - i.e. orthodoxy (right belief). We don't have the mind of God; hence, we can only understand and perceive dogma and doctrine (our understanding of God, church discipline, praxis, etc) through the eyes of the Church Fathers and the historical road of Orthodoxy.

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.

Again, I don't think that pointing to a saint's holiness alone is enough to define an ecclesiology. You and I may think that he is a saint, but someone else may not believe so because the saint's was not a member of their church. One man's saint is another man's devil. Thus, it has to come back to a profession of Faith.

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

Because Romanides does not bring his ecclesiology to the "level" of dogma and doctrine, with historical guides, etc, it does in fact smack of Augustinianism and therefore is ultimately platonic in nature.

Gregory

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Gregory, I have just been trying to keep your question (or what I think is your question), on track. Does Romanides and Floresvsky teach this? I personally don't know, although I know they teach, as Met. Heirotheos Vlachos does, the Church is a Hospital analogy. But your question is, if I am reading this right, as long as group has the appearance they are a true hospital, they are the church. I don't know if they taught that. I guess the million dollar question is, how do we know who is really healed? As you point out, having "saints" means almost nothing when looking at the entire landscape.

Perhaps you just answered your own question just now?

[Ioannes72]

Dear Ioannes --

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.

Perhaps I am dense, but this is just too broad an outline.Gregory

I apologize, but it is just impossible to give nothing but a broad outline in this forum. That is why I posted a website where you can study Fr. John's writings himself and take the time to learn what he has to say. From studying his writings, I can assure you that his treatment is not so broad as we are making it out to be.

At the end of the day, and at the very least, any talk about ecclesiology must refer back to a profession of Faith - i.e. orthodoxy (right belief). Gregory

Very true. And Fr. John would be the first to say that illumination and deification, according to the Holy Fathers, is impossible without the true faith. And you can find this in his writings.

We don't have the mind of God; hence, we can only understand and perceive dogma and doctrine (our understanding of God, church discipline, praxis, etc) through the eyes of the Church Fathers and the historical road of Orthodoxy.Gregory

This understanding and perception that you are referring to is not so simply attained either. Just as you yourself questioned about which Church has Saints, one can question which Church "understands" the Holy Fathers and the historical road of Orthodoxy "correctly"? In fact, reducing the true Church to our "own" interpretation of Holy Tradition is a very Protestant epistimology. Whereas the protestant believes in personal interpretation of Scripture, we now have Orthodox who believe in their "own" interpretation of the Holy Fathers and Scripture. The protestant epistemology has expanded to included both Scripture and the Holy Fathers. That is why we have such a plethora of "jurisdictions" these days, each believing to have the incorrect interpretation of the Faith.

Many of the Holy Fathers, including St. Gregoy Palamas, St. Symeon the New Theologian, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Theologian, say man's nous (mind) and dianoia (reason) were darkened after the fall through sin and the passions. When one has purified his soul from the passions, thereby reaching illumination, one's mental faculties (nous and dianoia) become clear and one can finally begin to understand the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers correctly for the first time. I know this teaching may be hard to accept, but most of us have not purified our souls and therefore we cannot trust our own "understanding" of the Holy Fathers. Again, how do we know we are "interpreting" the Holy Fathers correctly? This is the epsiteomological problem that Fr. John and Metropolitan Hierotheos are attemping to answer. A problem which is truly Western and scholastic.

Indeed, if we look at the early Church, particualry at the time of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the catechumenate was given for people to purify their souls of the passions. And their baptism was truly a sign of these people becoming illumined and remaining in a state of illumination. But for most us, we lose the Grace of Holy Baptism because of our passionate souls. We still have the Grace of Holy Baptism in a potential sense - the seed is there - but is has to be actualized through our purficiation. The Holy Fathers teach that the Holy Spirit cannot dwell in the Hearts of those whose hearts are passionate.

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.

Again, I don't think that pointing to a saint's holiness alone is enough to define an ecclesiology. You and I may think that he is a saint, but someone else may not believe so because the saint's was not a member of their church. One man's saint is another man's devil. Thus, it has to come back to a profession of Faith.Gregory

Yes, but one's Faith is also another man's heresy. At least with a real Orthodox Saint, one is dealing with something that is not a mere "interpretation", but is something verifiable and real. For example, St. Dionysios of Zakynthos, who has been incorrupt for hundreds of years, and whose shoes keep wearing out, even though they are constantly replaced. Even if someone wants to doubt his sanctity, how are they going to explain his incorruptibility? The Catholics, Protestants, Monophysites -- they all have ceased to produce Saints since they fell from Orthodoxy. Yes, they have "probclaimed" their own Saints..but where is the Holiness that remains with the body after the soul seperates? Its non-existent.

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

Because Romanides does not bring his ecclesiology to the "level" of dogma and doctrine, with historical guides, etc, it does in fact smack of Augustinianism and therefore is ultimately platonic in nature.

Gregory

Romanides does speak about the neccisty of dogma in his writings. But he also goes much deeper and speaks about the epsitemology of how one might know what the true dogma is. He maintains that deification is impossible without true dogma. Spend several months to really study his writings, instead of making judgements based on one document a friend has sent you. Fr. John's writings are very deep. Bishop Christodoulos of the GOC once told me in a letter that each of Fr. John's essays should be read at least several times.

In Christ,
Ioannes

[Justin Kissel]

Gregory,

This isn't particuarly relevant to a discussion of Frs. Georges and Romanides, though I would like to mention something regarding the Saints that might help supplement what Ioannes said. I can recall at least two recent writers--Fr. Seraphim Rose and St. Justin Popovich--mentioning that the lives of Saints are "applied dogmatics". The essay of St. Justin on the Saints would perhaps be worth reading, if you have the time.

[Gregory]

one can question which Church "understands" the Holy Fathers and the historical road of Orthodoxy "correctly"?

Yes, but this is where we need to start. The example of the saints is only a confirmation of the fact that "we have found the True Faith".

In fact, reducing the true Church to our "own" interpretation of Holy Tradition is a very Protestant epistimology. Whereas the protestant believes in personal interpretation of Scripture, we now have Orthodox who believe in their "own" interpretation of the Holy Fathers and Scripture.

You are correct: that is why we always need to look back at the historical Church for our guide, because they kept the Faith of the Fathers.

At least with a real Orthodox Saint, one is dealing with something that is not a mere "interpretation", but is something verifiable and real.

Perhaps we really agree to the same thing, but from a different direction. I would argue that we need to start with what we are verifying against, i.e. the Fathers, the canons, etc. The lives of the saints are the fruit of right belief.

He maintains that deification is impossible without true dogma.

I agree.

Gregory

[Mor Ephrem]

Yes, but one's Faith is also another man's heresy. At least with a real Orthodox Saint, one is dealing with something that is not a mere "interpretation", but is something verifiable and real. For example, St. Dionysios of Zakynthos, who has been incorrupt for hundreds of years, and whose shoes keep wearing out, even though they are constantly replaced. Even if someone wants to doubt his sanctity, how are they going to explain his incorruptibility? The Catholics, Protestants, Monophysites -- they all have ceased to produce Saints since they fell from Orthodoxy. Yes, they have "probclaimed" their own Saints..but where is the Holiness that remains with the body after the soul seperates? Its non-existent.

The Non-Chalcedonian Churches have had their share of saints who shared many of the qualities of sainthood that you would say Eastern Orthodox saints possessed, in their earthly lives and even after death. The Roman Catholics have scores of saints whose relics, including even whole bodies, are incorrupt. They, too, shared many of those qualities of sainthood that characterise EO saints. I don't care if you want to argue that Roman Catholics and Non-Chalcedonians are heretics, but at least get the facts straight. It is not that "Catholics...and Monophysites all have ceased to produce Saints since they fell from Orthodoxy", if by producing saints we mean producing holy people who had "supernatural" qualities during their earthly lives, and are marked in death by the incorruption of their relics. If this is the only criterion of sainthood, then they indeed have produced such Saints.