The Function of
the Unity of the Church...
By Dimitrios
Tselengidis
A Talk Given by
Mr. Dimitrios Tselengidis, Professor at the
University of Thessaloniki, at the Metropolis of Piraeus' Conference
on the Theme "‘Primacy,' Synodicality and the Unity of the Church"
Peace and Friendship Stadium, 28 April 2010
The
Function of the Unity of the Church and the
Fallacious Theological Presuppositions of
Papal Primacy
Introduction
The unity of the Church
in all its forms, either structural or charismatic[i],
is clearly grounded in the Holy Spirit. It is extended mystically, but
is maintained, cultivated and is apparent primarily through holy communion.
To begin with, the
unity of the Church, as one of its fundamental traits, arises from its
(the Church's) own ontology. In particular, it expresses the Church's
self-consciousness, which was historically articulated more formally
and conclusively in the definition of the Second Ecumenical Council
(381), which formulated the Symbol of Faith (Creed) of the Church.
Since then, we have
solemnly confessed through the Symbol of Faith that we believe "in
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." However, if the Church
is one according to the Symbol of Faith, then keeping with the
ecclesiological sense and strictly speaking, heterodox Churches
cannot exist - not mother-churches, sister-churches, daughter or grandchild
churches. The one and only Church, which we confess, is the spiritual
mother of all her members. That is, the one Church mystically
gives birth to her members "by water and Spirit;" it does
not give birth to other Churches.
From the wording of
the Creed it is clear, that unity, as a fundamental trait of something
(for the case in point, as a trait of the one Church), is an
established fact of our faith. And actually, in the conscience of the
body of the Church its unity is an ontological given, completely and
irrevocably made certain by the Head of the Church, Christ, through
the constant presence of the Comforter (His Spirit) in it, since the
day of Pentecost.
In spite of this, unity
also remains an experiential objective for the specific and eponymous
members of the Church of every age. As an experiential objective the
unity of its members comprises a personal endeavor of cooperation for
tried perseverance and sure fruitfulness in the living and life-giving
theanthropic body of Christ, and through it with the Triune God - but
also between ourselves, as members of the Church. It is the goal of
the incarnate God for us, so that we not only become one body with Christ,
but also one Spirit with the Triune God (see Eph. 4: 4-5: "one
body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling,
one Lord, one faith, one baptism"). This was explicitly expressed
in the "hierarchical" prayer of Christ (His prayer at Gethsemane),
as we will explain later in our talk.
In particular, the
unity of the Church exists and is apparent institutionally
in the faith, worship and administration of the Church. In each case
the aforementioned triple union is grounded in and drawn from the threefold
office of Christ: that of Prophet, Archpriest, and King. Consequently,
the three expressions of the unity of the Church must be considered
as interdependent and indivisible forms of the one complete unity of
the Church.
Without the distinction
of an ontological nature between the uncreated essence and the uncreated
energies of the Triune God, the unity of the Church itself remains in
practice essentially incomprehensible, but also theologically unsubstantial
- as much as on an institutional as on experiential-charismatic level.
The above distinction, which is a result of the charismatic and empirical
nature of Orthodox theology, comprises the spiritual "key"
of understanding the nature of the unity of the Church. For this reason,
this distinction will be a necessary presupposition in the treatment
of our topic; penetrating it and conceptually determining our so-called
points.
1)
UNITY IN FAITH
The unity of the Church,
as we have already suggested, does not constitute an autonomous and
abstract dogmatic truth independent of the Church's life. It expresses
its self-awareness and its experience in the Holy Spirit. The mystical
body of Christ, the Church, becomes a charismatic sphere, where the
unity of the faithful is constituted, lived, and revealed as an icon
of the unity of the Triune God. The unity of the faithful consists of
the fruit of their participation in the uncreated grace of the Triune
God and establishes an expression of life of the one and ever-united
Church, as an indivisible unity and perfect communion of persons. Consequently,
the theological-ontological presuppositions for the allusion of the
faithful to the Triadic unity are found in the creation and founding
of the Church as the body of Christ, in which the faithful become organic
members.
The faithful as a dwelling
of the divine persons, through grace, are called to live according to
the model of Triadic unity and in this way are to express their communion
and participation in the life of the Triune God. In addition, according
to the Evangelist John, the treatment of the unity of the faithful according
to the model of the the unity of the Divine Persons also constitutes
their witness to the world: "that they may be one; as Thou, Father,
art in me, and I in Thee, that they may also be one in Us; that the
world may believe that Thou hast sent me" (John 17:21).
In the aforementioned
hierarchical prayer Christ, according to Athanasios the Great, asks
His Father for the unity of the faithful according to the model of Their
own unity. Of course, here the unity of the faithful is not referring
to the nature of the Triune God, because "in nature only all things
are far from Him." (Against the Arians 3.26 ΒΕΠ 30, p.269).
The unity of the faithful as members of the one and only Church is grounded
not in nature, but in the uncreated deifying energy and glory of the
Triune God. The significance of this position is unquestionable, since
the hypostatic Truth Himself, in the immediate continuation of the hierarchical
prayer, expresses this explicitly: "And the glory which Thou gavest
Me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are one, I in
them and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that
the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them, as Thou
hast loved Me" (John 17: 22-23). In this passage one finds the
concise hermeneutical "key" to understanding the foundation
in the Holy Spirit of the unity of the Church. That which unites the
faithful in the Church, or that which makes the Church one and indivisible,
organic, a theanthropic body, is the uncreated sanctifying glory and
grace itself of the Triune God. This uncreated divinity, which connects
and perfects the body of Christ, is charismatically made familiar and,
in a mystical way, forever remains in the Church liturgically by virtue
of Christ, Who is also the Head of the one theanthropic body of the
Church (see Eph. 1: 22-23). In this body the "I in them" of
Christ is accomplished ontologically and charismatically.
Consequently, the necessary
prerequisite for our unity with the Triune God in Christ is the charismatic
presence of the Holy Spirit active in us. In other words, we are not
united with the Triune God on account of our nature, but because of
the Holy Spirit (see Athanasios the Great, Against the Arians
3:25, ΒΕΠ 30, 271: "It is the Spirit then which is in God, and
not we viewed in our own selves"). This charismatic unity of the
Church is evident in our agreement in conviction and the existence of
the united mind in us (see Against the Arians 3:23, ΒΕΠ 30,
269).
However, if the unity
of the Church as a sacramental and theanthropic body, but also the unity
of that the faithful as constituent members of the Church have between
themselves, according to the model of the unity of the Triune God, is
accomplished directly and personally by the Triune God Himself through
the uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit, then it is easily understandable
that the heterodox - Roman-Catholics and Protestants - who in no way
comprise Churches but religious communities with an ecclesiastical name,
having changed the Apostolic faith of the Church in the Triune God through
the Filioque and basically not making the distinction between the uncreated
essence and uncreated energy in God, set forth an impossible unity (of
an ontological and charismatic nature) with the Triune God and with
us in Christ.
But also every other
attempt at unity with the heterodox which skirts the above-mentioned
theological presuppositions for the "faith once delivered (Jude
1:3)," is actually impossible. Nevertheless, the delegates of the
local Orthodox Churches with their center of co-ordination (the Ecumenical
Patriarchate) appear to have another opinion about the unity of the
Church. This is why it is particularly typical that in the first paragraph
of the submitted draft of the Joint International Commission for Theological
Dialogue with the Roman-Catholics in Cyprus, in October of 2009, it
is cited that in the agreed upon Joint Statement of Ravenna (2007) Roman-Catholics
and Orthodox refer to "the age of the undivided Church," (See
Statement of Ravenna 41). It is clear that this phrasing presupposes
for the members of the Joint International Commission that today the
undivided Church does not exist. Therefore, today the Church is divided,
despite the faith of the Church, which we confess verbally in the Symbol
of our Faith. However, this means the falling away from the Church of
all those who consciously support all that the Statement of Ravenna
contains about the identity of the Church, since it indirectly but clearly
does not accept a part of the dogmatic teaching of the Second Ecumenical
Council.
However, already much
earlier the Roman-Catholics had deviated from the dogmatic teaching
of the Second Ecumenical Council with the addition of the Filioque.
The Filioque was conceived and appeared in the West when the experience
of the charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit in the ecclesiastical
assembly of the Pope's see withdrew. Essentially, the Filioque was the
crystallization of the estrangement from the living experience of the
uncreated grace and energy of the Triune God, through which immediate
and real communion with man is realized in the chief conveyor of the
unity of God and man, that is, in the Church.
Consequently, due to
our dogmatic disparity from the Roman-Catholics there cannot be - neither
actual nor formal - union with them. Nonetheless, the strange thing
(dogmatically and ecclesiologically) is that the Statement of Ravenna,
consistent with the previous Joint Statements of Munich, Bari, Valaam
and Balamand, refers to a common apostolic faith, the common mysteries
(sacraments) and the ecclesiastical character of the heterodox. Thus,
the false and blasphemous impression is given that with the joint Statement
of Ravenna Christ is deceived, Who assured us that branches cut from
the vine cannot bear fruit. The members of the Joint International Commission
affirm in their statements, that in spite of the heretical divergences,
the Roman-Catholics constitute a Church and that they possess genuine
sacraments. It is theologically and logically odd that the representatives
of the local Orthodox Churches do not realize the enormous dogmatic
error of the Roman-Catholics concerning the created nature of their
sacraments, an error which literally invalidates the aforementioned
claim of the Roman-Catholics, which Orthodox representatives also endorse.
The Roman-Catholics themselves assure us with their dogmatic teaching
about created grace, that they are empirically devoid of the experience
in the Holy Spirit of the Church and of the theanthropic nature of its
unity in the Holy Spirit. Consequently, with the existing presuppositions
it is completely theologically unwise and pointless for unity of an
ecclesiastical nature to be attempted with them. In addition, such unity
is practically and completely impossible, since it goes against the
theological presuppositions of the Church and the ontological content
of its nature.
2)
UNITY IN WORSHIP
Any form of unity in
the Church, without unity in liturgy and communion, is surely an imperfect
union. Unity of the Church itself, as a united body, is mainly a sacramental
event. With its sacraments, the Church imparts the mystical body of
Christ to the people. It combines them and unifies them with the Head
of the body but also with each other. Finally, it makes them one Spirit
with the Triune God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, offering them
deification (theosis) by grace according to their receptivity. This
happens dynamically, progressively and endlessly in the uncreated kingdom
of Christ, of the unwaning and unending eighth day of the eternal age
to come.
The unity of the Church
as a whole and the unity of the faithful as members of the Church has
its sensible (i.e. of the senses) and visual manifestation in the Eucharistic
gathering during divine worship, and especially in the faithfuls' participation
of Holy Communion. It is precisely then, in proportion to our purity
and receptivity, that we commune as in a type of betrothal in the uncreated
kingdom of Christ. Then we are actually united together, charismatically,
through uncreated deifying grace and energy with the whole Triune God,
with the Mother of God, with the bodiless and noetic beings, with those
that have been found pleasing to God since the ages - reposed, righteous
and saints - but also with all the faithful throughout the world, who
are organic members of the body of Christ and receptive of His uncreated
divine grace. That characteristic sensible experience - through word
and sound - of the Eucharistic gathering comes from this, through the
celebrant of the Holy Eucharist commemorating, not only the saints that
have come before us, but also today's Church leadership during that
great moment of the sanctification of the Holy Gifts.
Here, however, we must
make a few necessary theological clarifications, since today we are
in danger of a suspicious, watered-down, secretive (and I would say,
audacious) idolatry. It is being promoted from all those who - on grounds
of expediency - one-sidedly stress the structural expression of the
sacraments of the Church, as as if they operate unconditionally, magically
and mechanistically, even outside the Church. However, like this the
Patristic theory of the sacraments is mistaken for expressions of the
Church. The sacraments are the branches of the tree of the Church, the
members of its heart, as Saint Nicholas Cabasilas says. They provide
the uncreated unifying power of the Holy Spirit for the realization
and experience of the ontological nature of the unity of the faithful
members under clear presuppositions.
The unity of the Church
is accomplished mystically through uncreated deifying grace and specifically
through Holy Communion, but not mechanistically and unconditionally.
On the contrary, charismatic union presupposes the faithfuls' purity
from sin, their free co-operation and this mindset towards the faith.
Moreover, God is glorified correctly in the context of Divine Worship,
only when the doxology (glorifying) takes place "with one mouth
and one heart." This though presupposes not only one faith, but
also one life in the Holy Spirit. This is theologically obvious, because
God as self-glorified, can actually be glorified by us, only when He
Himself acts in us through His Holy Spirit. However, this happens only
when we have His Own Spirit working in us, which we received during
our own personal Pentecost, through Holy Chrism.
However, when the leadership
of the Church happens to have another way of thinking, which is contrary
to the dogmatic conscience of the Church as expressed in the decisions
of the Ecumenical Councils, then clearly the unity of the leadership
with the body and the Head of the Church appears to be functionally
problematic.
Such a situation is
particularly problematic for the unity of the Church in worship, when
certain leaders, who are commemorated in the Holy Eucharist, happen
to believe, to live and to behave in a way incompatible with the letter
and the spirit of the holy canons of the Ecumenical Councils. When it
happens that the leadership of the Church prays with the heterodox and
accepts, be it even tacitly, the joint statements that their representatives
sign with the heterodox, that is when they indirectly, but clearly,
consider the heterodox to comprise churches - in the ecclesiological
sense of the word - and therefore to have genuine sacraments, in spite
of the fact that the heterodox themselves dogmatically deny the uncreated
nature of the grace and the energy of the sacraments, and in this way
literally emptying the sacrament of the Church and its theanthropic
nature reducing it to a purely human organism, then surely the unity
of certain leaders with the Church itself is compromised to some degree.
Then the aspired unity of this leadership is basically spent on the
created and human level. Then this unity does not actually include the
Triune God, since the Roman-Catholics, with whom they are trying to
unite, continue to dogmatically deny the uncreated nature of divine
grace, which being divine ontologically bridges the chasm between the
uncreated Triune God and created man. Thus, holy communion between the
uncreated God and created man is basically done away with. But when
it happens that our life as members of the Church is not compatible
with the mindset of the faith of the Church, then our apparent structural
unity during divine worship is external and superficial. Clearly, it
is not that which Christ asked for from God the Father in His hierarchical
prayer, since this unity does not take into serious consideration
the theological presuppositions and those inspired by Holy Spirit for
its experience in all judgement.
Unfortunately, the
calendar change, along with the theologically problematic ecumenical
initiatives within the Orthodox Church, have become a cause of turmoil
for unity in worship and administration between the new-calendarists
and the Orthodox old-calendarists zealots.
We are of the opinion
that this problem should be taken up theologically and lovingly by the
leadership of our Church, as long as the Orthodox faith is common among
us. Recorded history after 1920 can mutually help in self-assessment
regarding the problem of ecumenism with the goal of regaining complete
unity and communion between us.
3)
UNITY IN ADMINISTRATION
This refers specifically
to the canonical and organizational unity of the Church and essentially
has its theological foundation in the royal-pastoral office of Christ.
In particular, the unity in the administration of the Church is immediately
connected to its traditional structure, to its ontology of an eschatological
nature, but also its identity of a charismatic nature. The established
heresies and the established ecclesiastical schisms are proof of a departure
from its (the Church's) institutional acceptance.
The visible unity of
the Church itself is expressed, as we have already said, mystically
during Divine Worship and more specifically in Holy Communion. However,
the visible unity of the Church is unquestionably, equally and timelessly
apparent in the eminent administrative expression of the Church, according
to the Ecumenical Councils. In them, the mindset of the theanthropic
Head of the Church is articulated synodically and infallibly - in all
exactitude. The Head expresses the whole Triune God, since the will
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is one. It is exactly this
nature of the content of the synodal expression of the whole Church
which is preserved in the distinct formulation of these councils, as
is e.g. the expression of the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem: "it
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28) or as in
the Ecumenical Councils: "following the Holy Fathers till now...."
Thus, the one mindset of the leadership of the Church is safeguarded
by the mindset of the Holy Spirit, which is active in the many members
of the hierarchy of the Church and this is objectively attested to,
provided the hierarchs expressed themselves humbly, that is "following
the Holy Fathers." This means that each council of bishops is obligated
to agree with and "follow the Holy Fathers." Otherwise, whatever
decision it makes is not only institutionally but essentially in abeyance.
A "key" for
ensuring the genuineness of the mind of the Church, which the administration
of the constituent local Churches or whole Church expresses, is the
dogmatic conscience of the members of the Church. In this way the dogmatic
conscience of the members of the whole Church proves to be an ultimate
criterion of the truth. In the final analysis the ecumenicity of a pan-Orthodox
council is judged unerringly by the conscience of the members of the
Church. From what was stated above, it is clear that the unity of the
administration of the Church is assured institutionally, not mechanistically
and democratically. It is assured only in the Holy Spirit. This basically
means that unity in Church administration has ontological presuppositions,
and more specifically, presuppositions set down by the Holy Spirit.
Namely, it presupposes the ontological unity of the faithful in the
mystical body of Christ and [presupposes] the experience of the presence
of the Holy Spirit in all judgement, which as an uncreated deifying
grace unites the mystical body and bridges the created members with
the uncreated divinity of the theanthropic Head of the mystical body
of the Church, charismatically and existentially (ontologically). This
means it is theologically legitimate and spiritually incumbent for any
of the faithful to question the institutionally expressed synodal decision
of the highest administration of the Church, as long as with certainty
he finds that the particular decision is not in "keeping with the
Holy Fathers." It should be noted that while holding such a position,
a person remains united with the Head of the mystical body, and also
with the whole Church.
The unity of the Church
in its administration is not ensured mechanistically through the institution
of Synodicality which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. It most certainly
presupposes that the hierarchs participating in the synod have a mindset
according to the Holy Spirit. Moreover, a true member of a council (synod),
in the strict sense and mainly according to the spirit of the word[ii], is he who is following the Way, which in
this case is the hypostatic Way, Christ. He is with Him, not simply
out of custom or institutionally, but chiefly in an essential and active
way only in the Holy Spirit, only when he truly has the "mind of
Christ."
From what was said
above it is clear that the unity of the Church, especially in its administration,
is not secured by the president and "first" at whatever council.
If, however, we think
about each first or presiding bishop in the administrative hierarchy
of the Church as an expresser and guarantor of its unity - as much in
the first millennium (e.g. the Pope, as the Roman-Catholics would like)
as in the second millennium (in the sphere of Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical
Patriarch, as it seems from some of his statements as of late) - then
inevitably we will have to accept that even some leaders having been
condemned as heretics, just as much in the West as in the East, secured
the unity of the Church with their heresy, while they were institutionally
in their administrative position. However, this would mean that unity
was secured mechanistically, by default of the unsound personal faith
of those leaders. But it would mean still that the unity of the Church
does not have an ontological nature confirmed by the Holy Spirit, or
that the Church can exist divided or in heresy. Something like this
comes in complete conflict with the dogmatically defined faith, which
we express in the Symbol of Faith with "one Church."
The Joint Statement
of Ravenna (2007, &41) appears to indirectly support, though it
is clear, the institution of primacy over the whole Church, despite
its different understanding in the East and the West during the first
millennium. As far as we know, in the relevant canons of the Ecumenical
Councils there is mention of "place of honor" and not of primacy
in administrative authority on a global level. This reference to "first"
(see 34th Apostolic canon, 2nd and 3rd canon of the Second Ecumenical
Council and 28th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council) restricts his
administrative responsibilities to a strictly local and eparchial level.
We are of the opinion
that it is not theologically or patristically permissible (see Athanasios
the Great and St. Gregory Palamas) to have a theological dialogue with
the Roman-Catholics about the primacy of the Pope over the whole Church,
even during the first millennium, while the Roman-Catholics are not
members of the Church, as they firmly hold to their heretical stances
till this day about the Filioque and created divine grace, along with
the primacy and infallibility of the Pope.
4)
THE FALLACIOUS THEOLOGICAL
PRESUPPOSITIONS OF PAPAL PRIMACY
If we approach papal
primacy and the Filioque in a historical-dogmatic manner, we see that
their appearance and development are concurrent. Both of these dogmatic
deviations go together historically.
The historical starting
point of papal primacy is found in the 4th century, both in the West
and in the East. Already in the Western Council of 371 it is supported
that councils without the consent of the Pope are invalid. In the East,
St. Basil the Great mentions the "arrogant papal brow," while
the records of the Ecumenical Councils inform us about the papal claims
the papist representatives conveyed until the 8th Ecumenical Council
(879/880) under Patriarch Photius. It is internationally confirmed by
history that the Orthodox East never recognized the primacy of the bishop
of Rome in administrative jurisdiction and authority, neither in theory
nor in practice, but only a "position of honor." This means
that he was the first among equals, "primus inter paris" (see
28th canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council). Finally, the Orthodox East's
refusal to submit to the claims of the West concerning a primacy of
authority over the whole Church became the reason the papists broke
away from the Church in 1054.
In the attempts for
union which followed, the West always tried to impose its monarchal
type of ecclesiology on the East, based on the idea that the Pope should
always be considered the only visible head of the Church.
The dogmatic safeguarding
of papal primacy formally happened at the First Vatican Council (1870).
At this council, along with the infallibility of the Pope, the exact
substance of primacy was defined, which is understood as an administrative
authority over the whole Church, with a view to preserve the true faith.
Therefore, it is clear that papal primacy comprises a structural element
of papism and part of its dogmatic teaching. This means that without
this, full ecclesiastical communion is not possible. The dogmatic inception
of papal primacy goes back through the Apostle Peter to Christ Himself.
The Second Vatican
Council (1962-1964) attempted to modify the above monarchal ecclesiology
of the First Vatican Council with the introduction of a peculiar ecclesiology
of communion (communio), which refers to the gathering of bishops ["Lumen
Gentium" (Light of the Nations) article 22]. Based on the Second
Vatican Council there truly seems to be a double supreme authority:
On the one hand, the assembled bishops with the Pope as the head, and
on the other hand, only the head. [Any episcopal body's ability of action
is impossible without its head, for it acts only when assembled and
in communion with the bishop of Rome. The Pope is somehow placed "above
the episcopal body" in a capacity of vicar of Christ (vicarius
Christi).] However, it is particularly important that the Council often
restates that the Pope can administer the office "alone."
So it is clear that
harmony was essentially not achieved between papism and the episcopal
office. The two ecclesiologies were placed next to each other in a problematic
articulation. History has proved the total inconsistency of the two
ecclesiologies of the West. In any case, the prediction of the Western
theologians is that, in theory and practice, we will probably again
see a clearly monarchal ecclesiology imposed, which will push back the
forms of collectiveness and synodicality, which recently came to the
foreground again (see concerning K. Schatz).
As is easily understandable
from what was said before, papal primacy - which is connected to papal
infallibility - in theory and in practice, completely renders the disapproval
of the pope powerless on account of his dogmatic errors. This alone
confirms the distortion (on an ecclesiological level) of the synodicality
of bishops, and clearly goes against the experience (led by the Holy
Spirit) of the Church, as was institutionally expressed at the Apostolic
Council and Ecumenical Councils. Primacy, as it came to mean in the
West, not only did not accommodate the unity of the Church, but contrarily
gave birth to tendencies of division and ultimately caused papism to
fall away from the Church. Of course, all this was combined with other
deviations from the dogmatic teaching of the Church.
The fallacious theological
presuppositions of papal primacy go hand in hand with the historically
concurrent Filioque, whose institutionalization chronologically came
first, since it had already been adopted in the West by the 6th century
in the Council of Toledo (547) and was added with local validation to
the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople (589). The fallacious theological
presuppositions of primacy should be re-discussed first and foremost
in the pneumatology of the West. In the life and practice of the Church
in the West, the pneumatological factor has fallen into disuse, resulting
in the adoption of the Filioque, which belittles the Holy Spirit on
a dogmatic-theoretical level. Something similar happened at the same
time with papal primacy, which theologically reveals the reduction of
the charismatic dimension of the Church and the reduction of the meaning
of the Holy Spirit in it. In a condensed way, this reveals the manner
of organization of Roman-Catholicism with its centralized and hierocratic
character and its governing power over the clergy and laity.
Even more specifically,
the fallacious theological presuppositions of papal primacy are clearly
of a pneumatological nature for the following reason. Those in the West,
very early on and progressively in any case, were alienated from the
living experience of the Orthodox East, which has to do with the charismatic
presence of the Holy Spirit, which according to the promise of Christ
will lead the Church after Pentecost "into every truth," and
will truly guarantee the unity of the Church through His invisible
presence and in all judgement, according to the hierarchical prayer
of Christ. That is, Western Christianity lost the living experience
of unity with the uncreated divine glory and sanctifying grace of the
Holy Spirit. The ecclesiological structure of Roman-Catholicism, which
we mentioned, confirms as much. This structure, with primacy as the
fundamental element, does not allow the charismatic functioning of the
Spirit of Truth, since the hypostatic Truth and theanthropic Head of
the Church is substituted with the created presence of its vicar, the
Pope, while at the same time the reference to the presence the Holy
Spirit was defiantly ignored. In other words, since the Roman-Catholics
do not make a distinction between the uncreated essence and the uncreated
energy of God, due to the fact that they do not have the living experience
of the charismatic presence of the uncreated energy and grace of the
Holy Spirit - and hence their dogmatic teaching concerning created grace
- they are not able to theologically understand the invisible presence
of the Holy Spirit in the Church ontologically, in accordance with His
uncreated and sanctifying energy, as a guarantor of the truth till the
end of time. Because of the lack of the aforementioned theological presuppositions,
the Roman-Catholics cannot theologically understand how Christ reveals
Himself invisibly to the living members of His mystical body and not
only in the world to come, but also how His uncreated kingdom within
the faithful is invisibly present, not coming "with observation"
(see Luke 17:20-21) for those that do not have active spiritual senses.
However, here the theological
question understandably arises: "What is the primary reason for
this theological confusion and disorder, which immediately comes out
in ecclesiology and in practice, in the life of the Church and with
soteriological consequences?"
Papal primacy, either
with its open sense of authority or under the guise of service (see
the Statement of Ravenna) in the administration of the Church, has as
its primary cause egoism, vainglory, and pride. These in their very
nature are - in any form - evil disrupters of unity. Multiform egoism
is the primary cause of any heterodox teaching, according to the testimony
of Holy Scripture (see 1 Tim. 6: 3-6). It inflates and corrupts the
mind and leads it to a falling away from the one and ever-united
Church. This same primary cause also tore Lucifer and his like-minded
angels away from the primordial Church of the Triune God with His holy
angels, just as it did with the first created couple. The egoistic mindset
is irreconcilable with the living experience of the charismatic presence
of the Spirit of Truth in the Church. This living experience has always
had humility as its fundamental characteristic feature, which is mainly
apparent in obedience only to the will of the one theanthropic Head
of the Church, in accordance with the example of His obedience to the
will of God the Father.
Christ HImself, during
His historic presence on earth, explicitly spurned every vainglorious
desire for superiority among the Apostles (see Matt. 20: 20-28 and 23:
8-11; Mark 10: 35-45), saying to two of His chosen disciples: "Ye
know not what ye ask" (Matt. 20:22). Still, it is particularly
important that the Apostles, after receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost
and from then on having Him in them experientially "in all judgement"
and active to the greatest degree, asserted no primacy, nor administrative
authority or service, as is attested to in the Acts of the Apostles.
Thus, we see for example that in the Apostolic Council the preeminent
Apostle Peter did not preside, but James the brother of our Lord. And
the Apostle Peter's position did not prevail, but that of the Apostle
Paul (see Acts 15). There, for the first time it was proven in a real
way that no institutional figure is infallible, but the whole Church,
when it expresses itself institutionally through an Ecumenical Council.
But all the things testified to in the book of Acts are enlightening
for our subject at hand, from the selection of the Apostle Matthias,
to the selection of the seven deacons, and particularly everything that
has to do with the way they were elected and the criteria coming from
the Holy Spirit (see Acts 6: 2-3). A main criterion of election was
the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the candidate deacons ("among
you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom"
- Acts 6:3).
It is also a historical
truth that never did one Apostle govern the Church. All the Apostles
equally administered it, as is obvious from the Apostolic Council. But
even after the Apostles, their successors, as equal bishops, governed
the Church coming together in councils under the presidency of an equal
bishop, as is witnessed to in the Ecumenical Councils. The "position
of honor" of the "first" (or one presiding) does not
do away with equality. And he who has the "position of honor"
has one vote and is subject to the criticism of his fellow equal bishops.
This is why some leaders among the hierarchy both in the East and in
the West were condemned as heretics during the first millennium.
Consequently, papal
primacy has no theological foundation, no legitimacy from the Holy Spirit
and no ecclesiological legitimacy. It is clearly based on a worldly
understanding of authority and ministry. It does not permit the structure
inspired by the Holy Spirit of the mystical body of the Church. It relativizes
and in practice, does away with synodicality as a function of the Holy
Spirit in the body of the Church, and introduces to it the worldly mindset.
It annuls the equality of bishops, it appropriates the total administrative
authority of the whole Church, essentially pushing aside the God-Man
and placing a man as a visible head and in this way institutionally
repeats the ancestral sin. And, just as the equality of the persons
of the Holy Trinity was institutionally abolished with the Filioque
in the West, especially that of the Holy Spirit, which according to
St. Gregory Palamas was belittled in the ontological category of created
things, thus with papal primacy, the absence of the charismatic presence
of the Holy Spirit in the body of the ecclesiastical body is institutionally
confirmed. And the ecclesiastical body is basically converted from a
theanthropocentric to a anthropocentric one. Lastly, the cure to this
ecclesiological deviation of the papists can only be obtained through
their humble return to the traditional ecclesiology of the Orthodox
East.
[i] Trans. note: The term "charismatic"
in this paper is to be understood in the Orthodox theological sense,
coming from the Greek word "charisma," that is relating to
God's grace through His Holy Spirit.
[ii] Trans. note: The word for "council"
in Greek is "synod." Someone taking part in an ecclesiastical
council is called a "synodikos," which means literally
one who accompanies or goes along with.
