Am I Right That This Is Fishy?

[Apotheoun]

Below is a post I wrote on the Orientals (i.e., the Miaphysites) some years ago:

 

 

The term mia physis was used by St. Cyril of Alexandria in his "Five Tomes Against Nestorius" in A.D. 430 in order to emphasize the reality of the incarnation in opposition to the Nestorian heresy; for, as he put it, after the union there is ". . . one nature of God the Logos incarnate (mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene)" [St. Cyril of Alexandria, "Against Nestorius," I, 1, 6, 33]. Now, the use of this term (i.e., mia physis) does not involve the blending of divinity and humanity in Christ; instead, it simply affirms the interpenetration (perichoresis) of the two natures in the one person (hypostasis) of the incarnate Logos. To put it another way, St. Cyril held that the Hypostatic Union involves a union of the two natures in a way that affirms their actual inseparability, without confusion or change; while also affirming their proper distinction tei theoriai monei (in contemplation only). 

 

 

Taken from the thread entitled:  Jihad is a Much Larger Threat than Nazism

 

[GMMF]

Just to be clear the patristic teaching that each local Church is the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in a given area through the celebration of the liturgy and the profession of the orthodox faith under the guidance of a bishop in apostolic succession is not the "branch theory." For example, according to the "branch theory" Anglicanism is truly Christian, but that proposition is quite clearly false, because the Anglicans did not maintain a true Eucharist or priesthood, while they also clearly do not profess the orthodox faith of the ancient Church. 

 

Just to add to what you've said, hierarchical communion matters in addition to faith and sacraments--not just heresy, but schism is also a sin of separation. It would be the equivalent of branch theory to say the Catholic Church and the various autocephalous Orthodox Churches together comprise the one Church of Christ.   Particular churches that fall into schism and are therefore separated from the unviersal Church cannot be identifed as the one Church of Christ, which requires hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff.  We can't fall inot an extreme Eucharistic ecclesiology that neglects the importance of the universal Church as the mother of the particular Churches.

[Apotheoun]

Just to add to what you've said, hierarchical communion matters in addition to faith and sacraments--not just heresy, but schism is also a sin of separation. It would be the equivalent of branch theory to say the Catholic Church and the various autocephalous Orthodox Churches together comprise the one Church of Christ.   Particular churches that fall into schism and are therefore separated from the unviersal Church cannot be identifed as the one Church of Christ, which requires hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff.  We can't fall inot an extreme Eucharistic ecclesiology that neglects the importance of the universal Church as the mother of the particular Churches.

Hierarchical communion matters among the episcopate in general and not just with one bishop. The Church mirrors the Holy Trinity in that sense. Primacy is not supremacy, and so the pope is just one bishop among the many bishops consecrated in the Church. The ancient Fathers had no sense of the pope as some kind of "head" of the Church in addition to Christ, who is the only head.

 

Again, the Eucharistic and Trinitarian ecclesiology of the Church Fathers is not a form of the branch theory, because the Holy Fathers held that each local Church is the whole Catholic Church. There can be no "branches" or "parts" of the Church, because like God the Church is indivisible, so just as the whole of the divine nature is present within each of the three Divine Persons, so too the whole Church is present in each local Church, and there can be no "universal" Church over and above the local instantiations of the one Church any more than there can be God above the Divine Persons.

[Apotheoun]

The whole Christ - i.e., head and body - is present wherever the Eucharist is truly celebrated and the orthodox faith is professed under the presidency of a bishop in apostolic succession. Christ cannot be broken into pieces in the Church anymore than He can be broken into pieces in the Eucharistic elements. When you receive a host at communion you do not get a piece of Christ while someone else in receiving a different host gets another piece of Christ. That idea is utter nonsense; instead, the whole Christ is present in each and every host.

[Apotheoun]

Just to add to what you've said, hierarchical communion matters in addition to faith and sacraments--not just heresy, but schism is also a sin of separation. It would be the equivalent of branch theory to say the Catholic Church and the various autocephalous Orthodox Churches together comprise the one Church of Christ.   Particular churches that fall into schism and are therefore separated from the unviersal Church cannot be identifed as the one Church of Christ, which requires hierarchical communion with the Roman Pontiff.  We can't fall inot an extreme Eucharistic ecclesiology that neglects the importance of the universal Church as the mother of the particular Churches.

If a local Church falls into heresy it ceases by definition to be the Catholic Church, because it no longer professes the orthodox faith that comes to us from Christ through the Holy Apostles. If a local Church falls into schism it may still be an instantiation of the Church, Catholic and Apostolic, but its communion with its sister Churches is ruptured for some reason. As long as it does not embrace heresy (i.e., as long as it does not abandon the orthodox faith of the Fathers) it is still a true manifestation of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, but because of its schism it simply fails to see itself properly within its sisters. This has happened many times in history. Now the ancient Fathers (e.g., see the canons of St. Basil the Great) treated heresy and schism differently, because heresy involves more than a mere rupture (temporary or permanent) between the sister Churches that each individually render present the one Church in a given location; instead, it involves the death of a local Church, that is, the local Church ceases to exist as the Church. It is a mere shell that looks like a Church, but is in reality no longer truly Christian for it is no longer orthodox in its worship and practice of the faith. That said, a Church in schism (alone - i.e., no heresy involved in its separation) was received back by her sister Churches within the Catholic communion with a profession of faith, while a group that had become heretical required more to be restored to the communion of Churches, for a heretical "Church" has lost the faith and can no longer offer true glory to Almighty God. That is why the ancient canons in some cases required such groups (either schismatical or heretical) to either be received through chrismation (schismatical groups) or - in the case of those baptized within a heretical group - the mystery of baptism had to be celebrated in order to receive members of that group into the Church (e.g., the Paulianists were to be received into the Church through baptism, see canon 19 of Nicaea I; and also the Phrygians, see canon 8 of Laodicea).

 

Eucharistic ecclesiology is biblical ecclesiology and there can be no compromise on that issue. The late medieval Western approach that divides the Church into pieces that are only latter united to each other through a legal concept of communion with the pope is simply not Apostolic or Patristic.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Apotheoun