The limits of the Church

[Chrysostomos Parks]

Hello, everyone. By way of introduction, I'm an Orthodox Christian living in northern California. I recently took the time to completely read an essay by Fr Georges Florovsky that I had only previously skimmed. I thought it was a challenging essay and am looking for some reaction to it:

The Limits of the Church (http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/crete-01-e.html)

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,

CP

[James H.]

Hello Chrysostomos!

That is an EXCELLENT article. It has, however, been some time since I last read it and, as you said, it was a challenging read. I would have to read it again to give a more specific and accurate reaction to it but, in the end, it helped me form a more mature view of what the Church is, and that there is a distiction between the canonical and true boundaries of the Church (I'm not at all suggesting that we intercommune where we wish, only saying that it is not ours to say where the Church is not... at least mystically speaking). In case I have confused this article with another of Florovsky, here's a link to the other Florovsky article that also helped me further form how I view the Limits of the Church, called The Catholicity of the Church (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catholicity_church_florovsky.htm) (equally challenging to read).

If I get a chance to read it again, I'll comment further but I would love to hear what you thought as well. I'm sure many others have read this same article and will soon give their feedback.

God bless!

James

[Owen Jones]

There has always been a tension in the Church between the Kingdom of God as an internal unity and as an external unity. An undue focus on one or the other misses the point. One cannot speak of one without the other. External discord leads to internal discord. We see a lot of discordant souls today because the culture is in a state of decay and disharmony and this has an impression on people. But one cannot create external harmony and order. The Church, or the society, is the soul write large. A society in discord is a sign that the souls that inhabit and form that society are in a state of internal discord.

So baptism, as are all the holy mysteries, is both a sign of unity and its cause. But without the rigorous training that the Church has as part of its theological memory, baptism is an empty vessel, regardless of whether we are speaking of converts or not.

The idea that somehow requiring baptism of converts is too much to ask is meaningless. I was baptised as an infant in a heretical sect, and my priest and bishop at the time only required chrismation. But even if they had required baptism does not change the fact that they required nothing else of me. There was no demand placed on me. There was no moral ascesis required as a pre-requisite to my chrismation, or after that. I might as well have been going through the initiation rites to be a Mason. Baptism and Chrismation do not, of themselves, produce a Christian soul. But the way we conduct them today in the Church is like a magical incantation. We act as if they are sufficient in and of themselves to create Christian souls, without requiring the work necessary. Would I all of a sudden want to die for my Christian brother because I have been baptised? No, it would be because I have shared that brotherhood in a common life of sacrifice, struggle, bearing one another's burdens, undergone a process of self destruction so that I could live for others.

[Chrysostomos Parks]

I think my main interest in this article is his assertion that our reception practices actually do say something about the degree of unity with schisms from the Church.

I'm coming to believe that we can't be totally "agnostic" about what happens outside of the canonical boundaries of the Church. I think he's arguing that, based on the different ways of receiving other Christian confessions, that the Church isn't, in fact, agnostic about it (which is the impression I, and I think most other Orthodox, have gotten from Khomiakov, which he specifically mentions).

I get the impression that he's simply arguing that Khomiakov is not the be all-end all of the Orthodox Church's view of other Christians.

If Florovsky is wrong, then calling them Christians is just a matter of politeness, I think. I suspect he's right, but maybe I just want him to be right. Now that Orthodoxy is permanently in the west, living side by side with all brands of Christians, the "I don't know" answer just doesn't seem sufficient to me.

[Owen Jones]

The problem is that we are all too often "agnostic" about who we are and our purpose.

[James H.]

I understand what you are saying, Chrysotomos, but perhaps the "I don't know" approach is all we can give. I'm not sure (and I really mean that, I'm not sure) that it was ever the Church's position to claim or discern where the Church was not but rather where it is (hence, canonical boundaries). While the "agnostic" approach to which you refer can be (and has been) used as a sort of ecumencial cop-out (and while I might also be guilty of this on some subconscious level), I highly doubt this was so for Florovsky.

I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I have interpreted Florovsky's writings correctly. In fact I admit that you're doubts might be completely justified: is our agnostic approach to the limits of the Church just our attempt to feel better about our protestant and Catholic neighbors? Is it just a cheap attempt or mind game to make us "feel" unity where in fact there may be none? And are we indeed ABLE to go beyond the "I don't know" approach.

I still think Florovsky brings up a good point: Can Christ work outside of His Body (i.e. The Church)? Is the Church only something Christ works with or is it indeed His Body, His Bride ("one flesh")? If it is indeed the latter, doesn't this term (His Body/His Bride), used to refer to the Church, seem to lose some significance when we can plainly see that Christ has spread his grace to Catholics, protestants and even pagans? How can we as Orthodox say (as most theologians will recongnize) that the Eucharist is valid in the Catholic Church (or at LEAST that it is possibly valid) and at the same time say that the Church (His Body) is not present outside of the Canonical boundaries of the Church? Maybe there is a distiction between Christ's Body and his grace, that he can kind of throw It like a baseball (sorry for the crassness of the analogy, it was the first that came to mind). On the other hand, how can we say that the pagans whom Christ blesses in the far East who have never known the canonical Church is somehow part of the "pillar and ground of Truth?" So please understand all that I have stated as real questions and not as rhetoric or assertions. Again, I could be misinterpreting Florovsky's articles here and I would appreciate any correction or clarification on these points.

Just some thoughts. I look forward to this discussion (and thank you for putting up with my incessant rambling) and I am positive that some if not all of my thoughts presented here are misinterprestations of what Florovsky wrote or even worse, heresy. gnneeeee... So I will gladly stand corrected.

In Christ,

James

[matt]

The following are a few thoughts about where this discussion could go. I am quite busy and I will not write anything of substance until I actually read up on this again. Even so…


I have not read the Florovsky articles in some time, but as I recall, he states that the sacraments of at least some of the schismatics are “valid” (if we must use that term) precisely because they hint to the time when hearts will be melted by preparatory grace, or something to that effect, and our union will be realized. Or, as some may put it, the external reality will correspond with the internal reality. This of course admits that the grace of God is operating outside of the visible boundaries of the Church. I have heard some argue vehemently against this. I recall hearing Fr Peter Gillquest tell the story of when he met a bishop, before Fr Peter was Orthodox, tell him flatly that there is no grace or action of the Holy Ghost outside of the boundaries of the OC, to which Fr Peter replied, “Then what spirit brought me here to see you today?”

Also, does not St Basil and the other Cappadocians recognize that sacraments of the schismatics, but not of the heretics? This distinction seems to be critical. I may be remembering all of this wrongly, but I thought that Nicea one or two discussed the reception of schismatics, basically rejecting the “rebaptize everyone” approach of some.

A few quick resources that may be of interest to some are a series of lectures on the subject by John Erickson, Dean of St Vladimir’s, and Fr John Behr, professor of Patristics at the same institution. They discuss the nature of the Church in Ignatious of Antioch and Cuyprian, along with the history of the reception of converts. They are available through St Vlad’s. Erickson’s book, Challenge of Our Past is also useful in this regard. Fr Francis Sullivan (SJ) is a RC scholar who has written a very useful book entitled “Salvation Outside the Church?”. It concnerns itself greatly with the modern RC respnse, but hass an excellent overview of the patristic traditionin all its variety.

I also have some articles on the subject by Bp Kallistos and others if anyone wants me to email them a copy. Let me know.

In Christ,
MAtt

[Chrysostomos Parks]

Further contribution from Erickson in The Challenge of our Past, Chapter 8, "The Problem of Sacramental 'Economy.'" He states my concern here:

"If "validity" (or "authenticity," to use a word with fewer associations) cannot be evaluated apart from ecclesial context, apart from the community of faith, what does this say about groups separated from the Orthodox Church? The Orthodox have not clearly responded to this question, but some response is desperately needed. (p. 128)"

He wraps up this chapter (the Florovsky citation is the footnote at the end of this paragraph, which is the end of the chapter) with the following:

"A final point should also be mentioned. The charge is sometimes made that, if we recognize the "validity" or "authenticity" of sacraments administered outside the canonical limits of the Orthodox Church, we are as it were condoning the establishment of an anti-Church bent on our destruction. If the sacraments of the separated churches were indeed theirs there might be some force to this argument. But are the sacraments administered by the non-Chalcedonians and the Roman Catholics--and maybe by others as well--truly non-Chalcedonian or Roman Catholic sacraments as distinct from the Church's sacraments, in the way, eg-that the Montanist baptism is distinct from the Church's baptism? Certainly not. These sacraments--which are in fact the Church's sacraments--point beyond division, schisms and even false teaching to that fulness of unity truth and love which is proper to Orthodoxy, so that when, eg-a Roman Catholic is baptized, he becomes a member of the body of Christ, not a servitor of the Pope; and when he is ordained, it is for the upbuilding of that body, not for promotion of the filioque. To be sure, schism and false teaching ("heresy by extension," as St Theodore of Studios would call it) may hinder or prevent these sacraments from fully achieving their right end, but they do not make them non-existent or deprive them of all meaning and content. In and through them the work of God's Church--our Church--continues. In this, at least, we should rejoice, even if we must also lament the realities of schism and heresy. (p. 129)"

[matt]

Since we are discussing "What is Church?" I thought that I would give this link to an excellent essay on St Ignatius of Antioch's "ecclesiology". It is very well done by a popular Orthodox teacher. Again, the Behr lecture from St Vald's is also fantastic and covers many of the same topics. I include this tie to St Ignatius since his letters form the heart of what is today called "eucharistic ecclesiology" made popular by Afanasief and Zizioulas.

http://members.tripod.com/dsgouras/Website/frjr_eccles.htm

Matt

[matt]

OK, do I get carried away with links? Sure. But this is some good stuff that relates to what we are studying!

More Ignatius (with impressive icon) and a great patristic primary source page...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html


And on Fr Nicholas Afanasief and the canons...

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/afanasiev-canons.html

And for one of Fr John Meyendorff's best works, Byzantine Theology, here it is online! It is perhaps the book that I reference the most on the subject for a quick synopsis.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/byzantine_theology_j_meyendorf.htm