Eucharistic Ecclesiology?

[Gregory I]

I understand that ecclesiology which is eucharistic to be the most ancient form of ecclesiology, and most fundamental.

Nevertheless, I do have some questions.

1. 1 Cor. 10:16- "[16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. [18] Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?"

2. We acknowledge the Apostolic Churches to have valid Sacraments. (Eastern Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonian, Assyrian Church of the East)

I must conclude therefore that we are one mystical body of Christ, yet formally divided, and all our schisms are man-made, false and contumacious.

Aside: At least some of the Eastern Orthodox are consistent by either denying the efficacy of our sacraments, or at least claiming agnosia over their effects. This strengthens their view of themselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Why don't Catholics do the same? Haven't we reintroduced the branch theory by adhering to an ecclesiology of communion that acknowledges the validity of other church's sacraments?

[Aramis]

No. We recognize that like a limb of a person can be palsied and uncontrolled by the head, yet otherwise still healthy.

They are not in perfect communion; like the palsied limb, they act apart... but every act is still affecting the body, and the body still affects the limb.

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Gregory I

I understand that ecclesiology which is eucharistic to be the most ancient form of ecclesiology, and most fundamental.

Nevertheless, I do have some questions.

1. 1 Cor. 10:16- "[16] The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? [17] For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all that partake of one bread. [18] Behold Israel according to the flesh: are not they, that eat of the sacrifices, partakers of the altar?"

2. We acknowledge the Apostolic Churches to have valid Sacraments. (Eastern Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonian, Assyrian Church of the East)

I must conclude therefore that we are one mystical body of Christ, yet formally divided, and all our schisms are man-made, false and contumacious.

This is a good and valid observation and one that has led the two "branches", or "lungs" as JPII called them, have entered into discussions and taken (largely symbolic) steps toward healing the rifts that divide us.

Aside: At least some of the Eastern Orthodox are consistent by either denying the efficacy of our sacraments, or at least claiming agnosia over their effects. This strengthens their view of themselves as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Why don't Catholics do the same? Haven't we reintroduced the branch theory by adhering to an ecclesiology of communion that acknowledges the validity of other church's sacraments?

For a long time the Church in the west Did take a more "hard line" view in opposition to the EO. The results of this "stand-off" were not condusive to healing and reunification.
For that reason the Church in the West has made overtures to teh east that have been positively received. There is much that needs to be done and our prayers are needed for those involved in the various talks etc.
May the Holy Spirit guide the two branches back to full communion.

Peace
James

[dcointin]

I've been reading "The Primacy of Peter", ed. John Meyendorf, and it addresses the question of the ecclesiastical models used by west and east, and how it has affected the development of primacy. One contributor's basic thesis was that the west uses a "body" model which sees each particular church as a part of the greater whole which cannot live apart from the "head", i.e. the Bishop of Rome. The east uses a "eucharistic" model which sees each church united to its bishop and gathered around the eucharist as complete in itself, and requiring no other head. He sees the beginnings of each of these models in St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Cyprian of Carthage, respectively. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks of this idea and if its a valid insight into our churches. God bless,

Don

[Alexander Roman]

Ultimately, to partake of Communion in the Church can only be done legitimately by those who are full Members of the Body of Christ. If one is separated from the Church, then such a one may not commune in the Church - just as someone in the state of grave sin cannot and being separated from the Church is being in grave sin.

Orthodox ecclesiology does not accept the "three-quarters or other measurement" full idea. Consequently, only full members in good standing of the Church may commune.

The RC Church does indeed allow for intercommunion under specified circumstances. As far as the East goes, those circumstances are all null and void as the canon law of Orthodoxy forbids such intercommunion.

I believe the Orthodox position reflects the original Patristic theology on this matter.

Alex

[Phillip Rolfes]

Originally Posted by dcointin

I've been reading "The Primacy of Peter", ed. John Meyendorf, and it addresses the question of the ecclesiastical models used by west and east, and how it has affected the development of primacy. One contributor's basic thesis was that the west uses a "body" model which sees each particular church as a part of the greater whole which cannot live apart from the "head", i.e. the Bishop of Rome. The east uses a "eucharistic" model which sees each church united to its bichop and gathered around the eucharist as complete in itself, and requiring no other head. He sees the beginnings of each of these models in St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Cyprian of Carthage, respectively. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks of this idea and if its a valid insight into our churches. God bless,

Don

Don,

I am currently in the process of producing a DVD/CD series of lectures by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia on this very issue. He contends that the ecclesiologies of St. Ignatius and St. Cyprian are not mutually exclusive, but each one needs and compliments the other.

The problem with claiming that Rome holds to one model while the Byzantine East holds to another is that it leads us into making nice neat categories which, in reality, don't exist (such as the "mystical East"/"legalistic or rationalistic West"). There is just as strong of a movement among Roman Catholic theologians for the Communion model of ecclessiology as there is among the Byzantines, Catholic or Orthodox. I've also heard it contended by both Metropolitan Kallistos (who I believe was positing Metropolitan John Zizioulas' theory) and Rt. Rev. John Behr that there are just as many within Orthodoxy who hold for the Body model of ecclessiology.

In my opinion (for what it's worth) the Church needs both models, and possibly many other models as well. If one Church insists on one model to the exclusion of the other(s), then they have made an idol of that model. All must bear in mind that in dealing with a theology of the Church we are taken up into the very mystery of Christ Himself, incarnate among us, a mystery that can never be fully grasped or explained, but simply celebrated with praise (doxologia) and thanksgiving (eucharistia).

[JRKH]

Phillip,
Very nice post. I agree wholeheartedly that we need to stop trying to "classify" "catagorize" and otherwise disect and seperate these things - Except - where those who are knowledgable and involved in the discussions, might need to address the issues for the purpose of clarifying and reintigrating the two views.

Often times when I am in discussions with Protestants the idea of the "locally independant" and "invisible church" comes up. I quickly point out to them that such a model is simply not biblical (Acts 15, Council of Jerusalem) and that both biblically and historically there has been both the desire for and active puruit of a visible, authoritative, and doctrinally unified ecclesia. In fact, it is my view that all true followers of Christ should be driven to seek this kind of visible doctinal unity.

I am then sometimes asked how the councilior model fits with the "infallible pope" of the west. To which I respond that regardless of the authority vested in the See of Rome and the Pontiff, the councilior model, both in formal councils, and by bishops taking informal "council" with each other, is alive and quite well in the Western Church.

So - as you say, this is not an either/or, but a both/and thing.
Christ vested authority to bind and loose in the ekklesia, He told us to "tell it to The Church" when there are issues. Such instrictions require that the community come together and take council with each other to discern the Will of the Holy Spirit on matters that effect the Church universal. Acts 15 is a stunning example of this principle in action.
Of course as the Church grew, more and more of this "taking council" was reserved to the bishops and other leaders, theologens and such, but the underlying principle remains the same.

Peace
James

[Gregory I]

Ok, but here's the thing, you can't have Christ in half-measures. Either he is really truly present in the Eucharist, or not.

Now, according to our perspective, he is really fully and truly present in both oriental and eastern orthodox and ACOE sacraments.

The members ALL partake of these sacraments, and therefore partake of Christ, the HEAD of the Church.

We partake of our sacraments and Also partake of the head of the church.

THerefore, we all acknowledge the headship of Christ over his church, and we are all made members one of another by this common participation in Christ, the one and the Same Christ who we each consider to be "on our side."

How can there then be but one single apostolic church? It seems the more we dialog with each other the more our "schism" seems superficial.

Remember NONE of the ecumenical councils anathematized bodies of churches, but individuals. So Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned, but not the Persian Church. Eutyches was condemned, but definitely NOT the Alexandrian Orthodox position. Nestorius was condemned, but not the Church at COnstantinople.

It is very easy to come to the conclusion that all our schisms, while they may keep us one from another, they cannot keep us from Christ: And by virtue of That fact, if he really IS present in other APostolic Communions, then why can we not acknowledge that there is ultimately one church, with manifold expressions, but some have erred, but surely not ALL?

[Aramis]

Wrong, Gregory...

Remember NONE of the ecumenical councils anathematized bodies of churches, but individuals. So Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned, but not the Persian Church. Eutyches was condemned, but definitely NOT the Alexandrian Orthodox position. Nestorius was condemned, but not the Church at COnstantinople.

The councils anathematized the Paulinists, the Gnostics, and several others... and classified how individuals of those sects could be regularized should they repent.

Remember, these were not just groups of heretics, but functioning (usually apostolic) churches with divergent praxis.

THe first ecumenical council's canon VII shows that the Cathari were considered validly ordained but outside the church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.xii.html

[Gregory I]

I mean of the churches embroiled in the specific christological issues I mentioned. I am aware of the church's dismissal of those groups.

I mean, The day before the Council of Chalcedon, the Bishops and priests were in full communion believeing what was held to be the Catholic faith. THen afterwards 1/3 of the church sees itself as alienated by holding out on a valid and Orthodox confession of faith?

[mardukm]

Well said, brother Phillip!

I seriously do not understand the distinction between an ecclesiology using the body as a model and a Eucharistic ecclesiology. Let's chalk it up to another of those non-Catholic attempts to create division where there is none.

Both models interpenetrate the other. A Eucharistic ecclesiology cannot exist without an ecclesiology of the body, for we are the Body of Christ. And an ecclesiology of the body cannot exist without the Eucharist which is the life-force of that body.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Ghosty]

This is actually one area where I wonder if the Fathers might actually have had a poor model of operation. The hardline "not in Communion, no sharing of Sacraments" approach seems to have done more to cause and harden Schism than to help preserve the Truth, and it leaves us with some awkward situations historically. St. John Chrysostom, for example, was in Schism from Rome for quite some time through no fault of his own, as he was ordained by Meletius, Bishop of Antioch.

Meletius was thoroughly orthodox in his teaching (and is regarded as a Saint in both Byzantine and Latin traditions, not sure about Alexandrian), but was embroiled in a bitter conflict with St. Athanasius and other orthodox Saints, like St. Jerome. There were two fully orthodox Antiochene factions, with Saints and Bishops on both sides with true Sacraments (ordinations on both sides were upheld in subsequent years), yet there was a bitter divide between them that was exacerbated by political intrigue.

The Meletian Schism between two fully orthodox parties seems to be the result of the hardline "Eucharistic ecclesiology", and I can't say I'm sorry to see this Patristic model moderated, since it seems to fail at promoting true Unity in Faith. Most times the Fathers know best, but sometimes their practices led to gang warfare at Councils with orthodox monks on both sides doing violence to eachother (St. Cyril, I'm looking at you!)

Peace and God bless!

[Gregory I]

PLease let me make clear that I do not think that we should have intercommunion on the basis of valid sacraments, I am simply trying to be devils advocate for greater knowledge of the truth.

Ghosty: I love Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria! He proved to me that you can be passionate and zealous for orthodoxy, and even fight inclinations toward violence and yet still be holy. I know you love him too, it's just nice to know the irascible have a place among the saints.

[LionHeart777]

Originally Posted by Ghosty

This is actually one area where I wonder if the Fathers might actually have had a poor model of operation. The hardline "not in Communion, no sharing of Sacraments" approach seems to have done more to cause and harden Schism than to help preserve the Truth, and it leaves us with some awkward situations historically. St. John Chrysostom, for example, was in Schism from Rome for quite some time through no fault of his own, as he was ordained by Meletius, Bishop of Antioch.

Meletius was thoroughly orthodox in his teaching (and is regarded as a Saint in both Byzantine and Latin traditions, not sure about Alexandrian), but was embroiled in a bitter conflict with St. Athanasius and other orthodox Saints, like St. Jerome. There were two fully orthodox Antiochene factions, with Saints and Bishops on both sides with true Sacraments (ordinations on both sides were upheld in subsequent years), yet there was a bitter divide between them that was exacerbated by political intrigue.

The Meletian Schism between two fully orthodox parties seems to be the result of the hardline "Eucharistic ecclesiology", and I can't say I'm sorry to see this Patristic model moderated, since it seems to fail at promoting true Unity in Faith. Most times the Fathers know best, but sometimes their practices led to gang warfare at Councils with orthodox monks on both sides doing violence to eachother (St. Cyril, I'm looking at you!)

Peace and God bless!

I know this is an old thread, but just in case anyone stumbles across it as I have done, the claim that Sts Meletius and John Chrysostom were out of communion with Rome for a time is not accpeted by all (including myself):

"...there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents -- whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city -- were never excommunicated.

When St. Chrysostom became Bishop of Constantinople, he was consecrated as a matter of course by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. Paulinus was now dead, and Theophilus and Pope St. Siricius were induced by Chrysostom to recognize St. Flavian as patriarch of Antioch. The idea that there was any schism of the whole Church is absurd (I am perfectly aware that so short an account of the difficulty is inadequate)..."

Source: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

There is also repudiation by the Rev. S. Herbert Scott of the claim that St. Meletius was not in communion with Rome, if I understand him correctly (see pg. 120 at the following link):

http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-c...ostomShort.pdf

He also repudiates the idea the St. Meletius died not in communion with Rome (see pg. 124 here):

http://www.catholic-convert.com/wp-c...Chrysostom.pdf

Regards,

Nick