"Of the Church" and other Problematic Academic Buzz Words

[Matthew]

In this thread I invite everyone to contribute any "buzz words" or lingo that they have come across with some of your own commentary on it, what you find problematic about it. I will begin with the popular, "of the Church," nonsense.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick seeks to critique this article (see: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/on-th ... nings.aspx) by an anonymous Greek Orthodox priest (we can assume is in the W.O. Communion otherwise why bother being anonymous) where he highlights the very troubling features of a recent meeting of the Pope and EP in Jerusalem. Father Andrew uses language, like "of the Church", common now in World Orthodox academe and draws very flawed conclusions about what is the branch theory and what is not. First let me quote a short portion of his much longer blog article:

I mean no disrespect to my brother in the priesthood here, but I have to wonder whether he’s actually read those documents. The the key text from the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium is in paragraph 8:

This Church, constituted and organized as a society in this present, world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although (licet) many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside her structure; such elements, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic unity.

This is not the branch theory. This is, in plain language, a claim in Vatican II by the Roman Catholic Church that only the Roman Catholic Church is truly the Church, but there are some churchly “elements” outside its structure. Since the Orthodox, for instance, are not “governed by the Successor of Peter” nor by “the Bishops in communion with him,” then that means we’re in the realm where there are such elements. These elements are “properly belonging to the Church of Christ,” but don’t make those who have them the Church.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca

So he begins by drawing a somewhat valid distinction between merely acknowledging "elements of the Church" or, as some would say, "marks of the Church", and actually holding to the "Branch Theory" of ecclesiology which is truly heretical. However, he goes on to make the distinction so forcefully that he boldly says they have nothing to do with each other in the views of EP Bartholomew, which, in my estimation is simply not the case.

He defends the EP by noting that on numerous occasions the EP has said very unhelpful things if he were really intent on effecting union with Rome, such as the following:

For someone who’s supposedly about to bring us any moment into a new Unia, the Ecumenical Patriarch certainly continually seems to balk at the actual action of communion with Rome. Perhaps it’s because he isn’t actually pursuing that with anywhere near the speed that some suggest. Honestly, if he really meant that the Church itself had been “divided,” then why wouldn’t he be joining in communion with Pope Francis? But he’s not. As noted in brief above, his own representatives at various theological consultations with Roman Catholics repeatedly stress that Orthodoxy regards itself as fully the one Church.

I remember well when I was in the Ecumenical Patriarchate parish in my hometown how my priest effectively extinquished my alarm at some of the heretical things the EP had said in regards to Muslims and Jews as being "our brothers in God" by saying, "Yes, but his Holiness has said many good and thoroughly traditional things. So he cannot have meant what such a dark interpretation of his words seem to mean".

My friends, this is an old ploy. It is called double talk. If you quote the lies they said, their defenders will quote the truths they said, and say, "You see? This truth he said over here is what he really believes and stands for." It is like a man with a knife behind his back in one hand, and with the other extended towards you offering a piece of cake and walking slowly towards you saying repeatedly, "I mean you no harm. I am your friend. Let us love one another. I am not going to kill you. I offer you good things. See?" And suddenly when he has reached the end of the road and the final step has been taken and begins to embrace you in a "brotherly hug" the knife is plunged into your back. It is deception.

When Bartholomew is speaking to Protestants and Latins at a European meeting of the WCC or some symposium hosted by a WCC member Church, he says things, within a seemingly "Orthodox" message that are entirely heterodox, because he knows he can get away with it. Then when he arrives in, say, Greece, or New York and is speaking before many traditional people he is much more careful, and will punctuate his interactions with the Catholics with the occasional statement that denounce them for their errors. That way he can always say, "But that is not my position! On such and such an occasion I said the opposite and very Traditional thing! You misunderstood me." Or if he wants to feign humility, he can say, "Well, perhaps I was too imprecise in my language. But what I meant to say was..." or something to that effect.

In any case, Father Andrew tries to make the case that citing this passage from Lumen Gentium does not support the branch theory, when it certainly does build the foundational suppositions towards holding that heretical view. He writes,

For Rome the Orthodox are true “churches,” local churches, and indeed a communion of local churches: authentic churches having almost everything in common with the Rome but having a “defectus” on account only of their lack of union with the Pope. This is what the 2000 document Dominus Iesus says. In contrast, Protestant bodies are not churches, but communities having some marks of the Church. This is still not the branch theory, however.

And further down he quotes EP Bartholomew and the Ravenna Document and says,

For example, here is a well-known passage from the famous Georgetown University speech by Bartholomew made on October 21, 1997:

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive. The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible. No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos (God-Man) Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?

One who says there is an ontological difference—a very difference in being, “not only in form but also in substance”—between his church and another isn’t teaching the branch theory.

And here’s something from the oft-discussed, but much-misunderstood (and, I fear, little-read) Ravenna Document, which has no official canonical standing but was approved by theologians on both sides of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic international dialogues:

Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, ; this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

This is both sides saying that they each see themselves as uniquely the Church. Again, not the branch theory.

This language, "of the Church", that I have seen often in recent writings among W.O. academics, is what seems to have Father Andrew misled. The case is made that because Lutherans are not baptised but only chrismated, and Latins are neither baptised nor are their clergy ordained but merely vested and confessed, that this is because of the "elements of the Church" that these traditions hold. The problem here is that the idea of validity is erroneous in these cases, and because it is erroneous it leads to the even more erroneous branch theory, or at least to the two-lung theory of the One Church.

Let me make my point by way of analogy:

We know what genuine Real marriage is. We know what the various "Marks of Orthodox Marriage" are. I can certainly see elements, images, similarities, natural consonance between genuine Marital Love and adultery, fornication, and, yes, even homosexual sex because I have known two men, one of whom was struggling to live a Christian life of sorts, who have lived together for 20 years because the really did feel they loved each other. But that such similar images of marital love take place entirely outside the order prescribed by God, not only are they not in the least "valid" or "recognizable" but they are therefore all the more abominable and hateful in the sight of the God of Absolute Love who "wills that all men be saved". If I were to take the point of view of so many ecumenically minded scholars, hierarchs, and monks in the World Orthodox academe, I would be perfectly entitled to claim, "adultery, fornication, and aberrant sexual lifestyles are not fully marriage, but are "of holy matrimony", and in part participate in its legitimacy to some degree. It is on this philosophical basis that we must at some future point, as the Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians have done, accept polygamy and homosexual marriage as a possibility of the Church's sanctifying power to complete what is incomplete as it brings these relationships from outside the Church and brings it inside where it can be granted what it is lacking." You see, if having what are discernibly elements that are "of the Church" present make what takes place outside of the Church somehow participatory in real grace (valid Lutheran or Roman Catholic baptism, as he claims) but not make it "actually the One Church" and therefore "not the Branch Theory" as he claims, then on the same basis we are forced to "in some measure" acknowledge these other very popular changes to basic Christian Faith and morals now already complete in many very established Churches. Besides which, I am nonplussed as to how Father Andrew cannot see the direct connection between this "of the Church" drivel and the acceptance of the Branch or Two Lung Theory. It seems self-evident to me that the "DNA" running through these thoroughly heretical ecclesiologies is precisely the belief he has presented himself on the conclusions one comes to by buying into the "of the Church" argument; namely, that possessing images, marks, or elements that are "of the Church" bestow "some measure" of validity that must be recognized.

[Maria]

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Matthew.

These forms of linguistic deception need to be exposed as you are doing. Please continue.

[Maria]

From that same article linked by Matthew, the first paragraph leads to a confused thinking too, which one might well label as "Cyprianite" because he and many 20th century writers, including the late Met. Cyprian of the SiR, acknowledge the reality of sacraments beyond canonical boundaries.

When sacraments are recognized beyond canonical boundaries, then we must posit that those churches who recognize each others' sacraments are in effect not divided, but actually united through Christ's sacraments. What foolishness! What deception! How can one be told to avoid the sacraments of another church, such as the Roman Catholic Church, if those of the Roman Catholic and World Orthodox Churches are recognized in emergencies when one is dying?

Also it is strange that the author says that recognition of sacraments beyond canonical boundaries is at odds with the Eucharistic ecclesiology movement, especially given the fact that all of the major architects of Eucharistic ecclesiology in the last century—people like—Florovsky, Afanasiev, Schmemann, Meyendorff, Zizioulas and others did in fact recognize the reality of sacraments beyond canonical boundaries. So did Lossky, Elder Sophrony and Staniloae, who don’t reflect the Eucharistic theology of those other names but are nonetheless not rigorists about these things.

Also the author does not seem to acknowledge that even within the Orthodox Church we have had divisions, including breaks in communion, without denying that all of the local churches are united to Christ, as mentioned above regarding ROCOR, for instance. The anaphora of St. Basil prays for an end to the schisms of the churches (παῦσον τὰ σχίσματα τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν; not “schisms from the Church”). It acknowledges the divided churches as churches, not parasynagogues. Whether one can apply that to our relationship to the Roman Catholic Church is another question, but still, the insistence that any division whatsoever means that one or the other side must be utterly cut off is highly doubtful and not congruent with the Church’s own history.

In the second paragraph, is there a difference between a "schism of the churches" and a "schism from the Church"? Could this Anaphora of St. Basil be attributed to a translational prepositional error? What did St. Basil actually write in the original Greek?

To access this reference, I have provided the same link as Matthew has.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=ca

[Matthew]

To the best of my knowledge, the consensus of the Church Fathers does not teach, nor do the canons on relations with schismatics who have sundered themselves from the visibly unity of communion from the Church over matters other than doctrine, that the Church can be visibly divided from itself such that the Fullness of the Church can exist in two separate non-communing bodies. That one can find in the long history of the Church exceptions [invariably relatively short-lived periods] that footnote Her history in peripheral events that differ markedly from Her mainstream or backbone position and confession of the dogma of Ecclesiastical Oneness, is not justification for changing dogma in this matter. This argument is typical of modernist-ecumenist "Orthodox scholarship" among the World Orthodox. In effect, they try to argue that the backbone of Orthodox Dogma of Ecclesiology, the mainstream "Real Position" on the unity of the Church, has always been, and can only be discerned by assembling the footnotes of Church history and placing them at the fore, and that the Real Limits of the Church and her Mysteries are not defined by the vast majority of canon law, nor by the clear statements and actions of such saints as Saint Mark of Ephesus, St. Paisius Velichkovsky, or Saint Nektarios of Aegina who all lived in and were familiar with the post-Reformation and Roman Catholic European world, and who stated that these religious bodies had no grace of any mysteries and were not in the least The Mystical Body of Christ--but rather were Her enemies. They would have us believe that exceptions and footnotes are the rule, not the vast majority positions, actions, synodal decrees, or examples found among the lives of the Saints who encountered the heterodox over centuries. They make the claim that if we do not accept these confusing examples as the new standard of who has grace or not--at least in some measure like baptism, then we are being hypocritical, we are turning a blind eye to these "glaring" examples, and be damned that they are exceptions.

Look, the fact is, history -- human history of any kind -- is simply not a neat and tidy, an "all-loose-ends" can be tied up in a totally rational and logically satisfying system; like an exceptionally long calculation of additions, multiplications, divisions, and subtractions, where no odd numbers are left over at the end--all neatly squared away. This is an entirely wrong way to think that Church dogma and government has to work out in history in every case. Of course there are exceptions that do not fit into the canons and the dogmas in a strict application (akrivea). There are many cases where economeia seems to indicate an entirely different position. I don't know anyone in any Old Calendar or New Calendarist communion who would dare say that everything the saints, or the Fathers said and did was always consistent or was the best course to take in dealing with the heterodox. But when it suits them, the Ecumenist scholars, so disposed towards reform in these matters, pooh-pooh the clearly set forth mainstream majority positions and declarations of the saints, canons, and councils and try to further their ecumenist agenda by driving a Mack Truck through the pinhole of these exceptions that are footnotes that are known only to scholars and the well-read, and are conspicuously absent from the daily liturgical texts and daily readings that are the bread and water of the Life of the Church for the vast majority of her members. Their claims, if justifiable, would make the Church truly schizophrenic.

As for the prayer, heal the schisms of the churches, I do not know for certain about what this definitely referred to in the mind of the composer of this prayer. What I can say is that, like so many things in the Church's life, words in one century can mean a very different thing in the next. It may be the case here. For example, in the first century when many of the apostles still lived, the New Testament refers to episcopoi and presvyteroi in a manner that clearly indicates they were used interchangeably. However, by the second century the words were clearly defined differently where the unique powers of the Apostles, such as binding and loosing and ordaining, were given to the bishops only, and the presbytery were receivers of delegated authority. Consider that Holy Apostles Peter and Paul were divided hotly over the matter of observing Jewish customs, and Sts. Paul and Barnabas sharply parted company over how to deal with St. Mark who had made some mistakes. Now, it is obvious that these are wounds in the body of Christ that needed healing, as the prayer speaks. However, divisions of this kind, as serious as they were, were not breaks in communion. They could have fallen to that extent, but they did not and over time they were healed.

It would be my expectation that the prayer for the healing of the "schisms of the Churches" could be referring to internal "divisions" rather than severance in communion; or, they could be a reference to a complete schism of what was recently a true organic part of the Church, such as the Coptic Church for example, that had, in the writer's time, recently fallen into excommunication over some matter, and the prayer therefore refers to this full-blown schismatic group as, "of the Churches". And of course, there could be other explanations that I cannot think of. But whatever the case, one word of a text in prayer -- nor indeed a collection of such words -- cannot be read in such a way that it is placed at odds with and and is given the authority to entirely change the position of the Church on the status of people and their religions which are NOT in communion with the visible unity of the Church; for as the Creed says, and as the majority of Fathers, canons, and the saints down through the ages clearly reflect, the Church is Visibly One and it is impossible for Her to be divided. In all ambiguous points in the Church's history we must always return to and lean heavily upon the guideposts of the Church, her central positions, not footnotes gleaned from submerged events on the periphery of the Church's experience and actions.