Libmonster ID: BY-3016
Author(s) of the publication: Aristotle Papanikolaou
Educational Institution \ Organization: Fordham University (New York, USA)

My task in this essay is simple: to critically examine the relation between councils and episcopal primacy in light of eucharistic ecclesiology. The critical lens will be on both eucharistic ecclesiology (is it theologically correct to say that the church is most church in the celebration of the Eucharist?), and on conclusions about the relation between councils and episcopal primacy (even if the church is realized in the eucharistic celebration, does the logic of eucharistic ecclesiology lead toward the affirmation of a universal episcopal primate who presides over a pan-Orthodox council?). The hope is that this question will not be driven by the psycho-dynamics of self-identification vis-avis the proximate other, and that theology could serve a critical tool that challenges the Church to be the Church.

Keywords: church, eucharistic ecclesiology, baptismal ecclesiology, councils, bishops, primacy, theology.

This article is a specially prepared version of the publication for this journal: Papanikolaou, A. (2016)" Primacy in the Thought of John [Zizioulas], Metropolitan of Pergamon", in Primacy in the Church: Reflections on the Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis. Volume 1: Historical and Theological Perspectives. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

page 358
ORTHODOX people like to boast that they are in a sacramental unity of faith, and this allows them to maintain independent jurisdictions of individual churches, which in turn meet in councils to address the current problems and challenges facing the world church, and to show visible unity in faith. However, it is obvious to everyone-both Orthodox and non-Orthodox-that there are painful divisions between the churches, even on the most insignificant issues. It is also obvious that the question of primacy, which is essentially connected with the theology of councils, has become an integral part of Orthodox self-identification. To be Orthodox means to identify oneself in contrast to Catholics, and therefore the idea of ecumenical episcopal primacy in any essential form creates an identity crisis for Orthodox Christians.1
In modern Orthodoxy, the most influential voice in favor of the link between councils and primacy is Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. Given the involuntary reaction of many Orthodox Christians (especially those who have converted to Orthodoxy) against the idea of ecumenical episcopal primacy, Zizioulas ' attempt to address this issue is bold and inspiring. What is most impressive about his approach is that he insists on considering the nature and essence of councils and primacy from a theological point of view, rather than from a historical point of view, or even by exegesis of the relevant biblical passages.2 If we Orthodox should avoid simply rejecting any notion of ecumenical episcopal primacy for the sake of the priority of councils, while proceeding from self-identification through repulsion from the nearest other (and such self-identification is a form of ideology and idolatry), then the question of primacy should be solved from a theological point of view, with special emphasis on ecclesiology.

1. См.: Orthodox Constructions of the West (2013). Eds. George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou. Bronx, New York: Fordham University Press.

2. Zizioulas, J. (2010) "Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach," in The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World Today, p. 264. Ed. Fr. Gregory Edwards. Alhambra, California: Sebastian Press. См. также его же: "Recent Discussion on Primacy in Orthodox Theology", in The One and the Many, pp. 274-287; и "Conciliarity and Primacy", Theologia 86:2 (2015): 19-34.

page 359
Although there is no consensus on the relationship between councils and primacy, or even the need for primacy, there is still no resistance when this issue is considered within the framework of ecclesiology. What we say and how we speak, if at all, about councils and primacy depends on what we mean by the Church from a theological point of view. Zizioulas ' understanding of cathedrals and primacy is based on the so-called Eucharistic ecclesiology. In this article, I intend to do a simple thing: critically examine Zizioulas ' understanding of the relationship between cathedrals and primacy in the light of his ecclesiological views. I will consider both his Eucharistic ecclesiology (is it theologically correct to say that the church is most of all the Church at the time of the celebration of the Eucharist?) and his conclusions concerning the relationship between councils and episcopal primacy (even if the church is revealed as the church through the Eucharist, does this mean that the very logic of Eucharistic ecclesiology leads to the statement that need for an ecumenical first hierarch to preside over a pan-Orthodox council?). I hope that the consideration of these issues will not be determined by the psychology of self-identification "at the expense of the other" and that theology can become a critical tool that encourages the church to be the church.

Usually, when people talk about Eucharistic ecclesiology, they cite the famous saying of Henri de Lubac: "The Eucharist creates the Church"3. However, this formula does not exactly express what is meant by Eucharistic ecclesiology. When Zizioulas considers the Church as part of the celebration of the Eucharist, he does not say that the celebration of the Eucharist is an active cause that generates the Church as its effect. Such an active cause is always and can only be the Holy Spirit. Zizioulas considers the Church within the framework of the celebration of the Eucharist because (from a theological point of view) the Holy Spirit is present in a special way during the Eucharist - as a result of the gathering of believers for the purpose of sacrificial prayer to God; a gathering that commemorates the Last Supper of Christ with his disciples, as well as his passion, but which also indicates an eschatological unity-

3. Lubac, H. de (1956) The Splendour of the Church, p. 12. London: Sheed and War.

page 360
the unity of all believers in the body of Christ 4. No Orthodox theologian will argue with this.

If the Holy Spirit is present during the celebration of the Eucharist, which is both a historical continuation of the Last Supper and an iconic expression of the eternal Eucharist celebrated on the heavenly throne, then the Holy Spirit reveals the resurrected and therefore eschatological body of Christ. However, the Holy Spirit does not simply transform the material elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ for the communion of the faithful and thus for the individual salvation of individual Christians participating in the Eucharist. The Holy Spirit makes the resurrected body of Christ present and thereby connects the entire congregation with the Body of Christ, that is, it constitutes the congregation itself as the Body of Christ. If it is the Body of Christ, then it is the Church in its entirety, that is, the communion of all material creation with God the Father in the person of Christ and through the Holy Spirit. This identification is the Eucharist=Church=The Body of Christ is based on the theology of the Holy Spirit, which sees the work of the Spirit in ensuring the presence of the eschaton, which means the unity of all in Christ.

There is a remarkable logical sequence in this theological vision, which is based on the Orthodox understanding of communion (theosis) as God-human communion. The concept of deification is essentially trinitarian, but not in the sense that the church reflects the intra-troic communion of persons or contains an analogue of the monarchy of the Father; it is trinitarian because it expresses God-human communion in the person of Christ and through the Holy Spirit.

If some theologians, mainly patrologists, 5 feel disgusted with "systematic theology" as a form of theology that is hopelessly corrupted by modern thought, it is still difficult to understand why a theology that talks about God should not be in harmony with a theology that talks about the human person or the Church. Perhaps it would be better to simply drop such expressions as" systematic theology "and"Eucharistic ecclesiology". And yet when we

4. For more details on Zizioulas ' Eucharistic ecclesiology, see Papanikolaou, A. (2006) Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism and Divine-Human Communion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

5. См., например: Ayres, L. (2004) Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to FourthCentury Trinitarian Theology, pp. 392-404. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

page 361
When we try to answer the question " Where is the Church?", we immediately think of God and the human person. And this should be thought about "systematically", although, of course, strictly logically.

Similarly, it is difficult to understand the objections to considering the fullness of the Church in the context of the event of the Eucharist, especially if such a consideration takes place from the point of view of a trinitarian understanding of the role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the process of God-human communion. Some critics of this approach suggest a so - called "baptismal ecclesiology", in which the unity of the Church is realized in an amorphous way-through the presence of the Holy Spirit in every believer.6 No Orthodox theologian will deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in baptism, and no one will deny that there is no Church without baptism. However, can the Church really be considered as part of the performance of baptism?

Before answering this question, I would like to draw attention to several important points put forward by the proponents of "baptismal ecclesiology". First, the emphasis on the importance of baptism in relation to ecclesiology reminds us that the Holy Spirit also works outside of the Eucharist, both in the lives of individual Christians seeking communion with God, and when a group of Christians gathers for non - Eucharistic prayer or social activities. Second, the emphasis on baptism draws our attention to the cosmic vision of the Church that is present in patristic texts. The Church is the cosmic eschatological unity of all in all in the person of the Logos, and in this sense it is everywhere and nowhere. These aspects of baptismal ecclesiology are really important when we talk about the Church and the work of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the proponents of such an ecclesiology forget that in the final analysis, baptism exists so that the baptized person can become a participant in the Eucharistic assembly. In ancient times, baptism was performed within the framework of the Eucharistic assembly, and catechumens who were preparing to receive baptism were excluded from the Eucharistic assembly at the moment when it was time for the offer

6. See, for example: Berger, C. (2007) " Does the Eucharist Make the Church? An Ecclesiological Comparison of Staniloae and Zizioulas," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 51(1): 23-70; Erickson, J. (2011) "The Church in modern Orthodox thought: towards a baptismal ecclesiology," International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 11(2-3): 137-151.

page 362
and the consecration of the Eucharistic gifts. Baptism is the entrance to the Eucharistic way of life; it always points to the Eucharist. The Eucharistic mode of existence is the fulfillment of the baptismal vows.

The problem of Baptismal ecclesiology is also related to the fact that it is not able to answer the question "where is the Church?". Let's take a step back and pay attention to the following. Opponents of Eucharistic ecclesiology (including those who believe that it is a modern invention poisoned by "systematic theology") often forget that ecclesiology itself arose as an answer to the urgent question of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: "where is the Church?" One of the answers was that the Church is a visible institutional church structure. Eucharistic ecclesiology has emerged among Orthodox and Catholics7 as a resistance to this pyramidal, top-down image of the Church. From the point of view of defining the place of the Church, it has, in my opinion, rightly focused on the divine service, first of all on the Eucharist, in order to emphasize the importance of the people of God in the Church, that is, the constitutive mutual relationship between various ministries, laity and clergy, bearing in mind the need for the church to be the Church. This ecclesiology understands the divine service as primarily and primarily a Christian gathering, in which human individuals make an offering of created material substance (bread and wine) to God, accompanying this offering with praise; in return, they receive the gift of the grace of communion with the Living God in Christ through the Holy Spirit.

Some might say that when asked "Where is the Church?" there is no answer, because the Church is invisible, cosmic, eschatolo-

7. Zizioulas is not the only one who defends the Eucharistic understanding of the Church. Such an understanding was offered by famous Orthodox theologians: John Meyendorff, Alexander Schmemann, George Florovsky and Nikolai Afanasyev. The latter is regarded by some as the father of Eucharistic ecclesiology, although Florovsky linked the Church, Christ and the Eucharist as early as 1929 in his article "The Eucharist and Conciliarity". Afanasiev's first sketches of Eucharistic ecclesiology appear in the mid-1930s in his works on cathedrals and canon law. At the same time, the connections of this Eucharistic understanding of the Church with the sophiology of O. S. Bulgakov, with the concept of conciliarity in A. Khomyakov, as well as with the ideas of the Catholic theologian I. Moeller, and in general with German Romanticism are discussed. Об этом см.: Nichols, A. (1989) Theology in the Russian Diaspora: Church, Fathers, Eucharist in Nikolai Afanase'v, pp. 62-93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

page 363
geologic reality. Even so, this question cannot be avoided - just like the question " where is God?". This second question was answered: in the person of Jesus Christ with all his physical materiality. Similarly, the Church must be iconically visible in some way. Eucharistic ecclesiology simply indicates that the Church is not in visible institutional structures such as cathedrals, curia, or popes. If the whole point is the expression "Eucharistic ecclesiology", which supposedly has too modern a sound, then we will approach it from a different angle. When we are asked "where is God?" we say: in the person of Jesus Christ. And when we are asked to say where the Church is, it is difficult to point to anything other than the Eucharist.

Up to this point, I have spoken about the reasons for the understanding that the Eucharistic Divine Service is the place where the fullness of the Church is revealed. As Callistus Ware so emphatically and succinctly put it, although Eucharistic ecclesiology "is subject to criticism... its opponents, as a rule, offer only to change some details, without putting forward a fundamentally different alternative"8. I would add that these critics do not answer the question " where is the Church?", and until they give a convincing answer, we have to point to the Eucharist when answering this question.

It is on this basis that Zizioulas builds his understanding of the relationship between cathedrals and primacy. He says that if the fullness of the Church is revealed in the Eucharist, then there is also a theological basis for councils and primacy, including ecumenical primacy.

The logic in this case is quite simple: it is based on the mutual and constitutive connection between the primate and the people in the Eucharist and on the event of communion itself, which is the Eucharist. In the Eucharist, the people of God who live in a certain place - for example, in a village-come together to prayerfully offer the basic material elements (bread and wine) for communion with God in the Body of Christ. This offering is made by the primate of the congregation on behalf of all the people of God gathered at a particular local Eucharistic service. However, the primate is constituted in this sense.

8. Ware, K. (2011) "Sobornost and eucharistic ecclesiology: Aleksei Khomiakov and his successors," International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 11: 203-231.

page 364
and vice versa, the congregation is constituted as the people of God precisely through the offering made by the primate. There is a mutual constituent connection between the Primate and the people of God, which is actualized in the event of the Eucharist as an event of communion. In this sense, Eucharistic ecclesiology answers the question of the nature and place of the Church in a way that includes the laity and does not allow for the reduction of the Church to a bishop or even a council of bishops. According to Zizioulas, ecclesiastical service ("priestly service") - it is relative, and therefore draws attention to the fact that lay people are also "ordained" - in baptism, and that they are assigned a special active role in the Eucharistic congregation. 9
According to Zizioulas, the bishop is the "visible center of unity" of the Eucharistic congregation; without the active role of the laity, endowed through baptism with special roles in the Eucharistic congregation, neither the bishop as such nor the unity expressed and symbolized in the bishop is possible.10 Therefore, there can be no "private mass", since in principle there can be no "one" without "many". Zizioulas was accused of episcopal centrism11, but this accusation is a consequence of a misunderstanding of his thought (and therefore does not give rise to the need for any correction in the form of "baptismal ecclesiology"). Ultimately, the bishop as the celebrant of the Eucharist is accountable to the community of believers; the bishop as an icon of the "many" is constituted as "one" in communion with the "many". In other words, there is no bishop without many, that is, believers. In the Eucharist, there is a mutual actualization of the one and the many, unity and separateness, personality and communion, and all this is incompatible with episcopal centrism, even in its institutional form. As Zizioulas says,

9. Zizioulas, J. (1985) Being as Communion, p. 216. St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. Zizioulas spoke about this as early as 1972 in his article: Zizioulas, J. (1972) " Ordination - A Sacrament? An Orthodox Reply", Concilium 4: 33-39. According to Zizioulas, "ordination" is by its very nature relational and generates activity, and there are no participants in the Eucharistic assembly who are not "ordained". In fact, it is the "ordination" of all its members/ participants that is constitutive for the Eucharistic assembly.

10. Zizioulas. Being as Communion, p. 236. This understanding of baptism removes from Zizioulas all charges that he ignores the role of baptism in Eucharistic ecclesiology.

11. См.: Erickson, "The Church in modern Orthodox thought".

page 365
"plurality must not be subordinated to unity; it is constitutive to unity... The principle is that "one" - the bishop - cannot exist without "many" - the community-and "many" cannot exist without "one""12. Eucharistic ecclesiology has its weaknesses, but it is completely alien to the idea of a passive role for the laity.

According to Zizioulas ' Eucharistic logic, the unity of a particular local community is expressed through its relation to other bishops through councils, but even if this Eucharistic logic is expressed institutionally in a council, it is assumed that the role of the laity is expressed through their unity in the bishop. 13 If we continue our example with the village, there is a need for a particular Eucharistic community to express its relations and communion with other Eucharistic communities. The structure of the council arises as a way of expressing this communion, since this structure is able to iconically reflect the communion that takes place within the Eucharistic service, even if the council itself is not a liturgical event.

When different primates come to the council, it is difficult to imagine how the council will be able to work if the one who will take the place of the first one at the council itself is not elected. Through the election of the council president, the mutually constitutive relationship of "one" and "many" is realized within the council, thus creating a structure of communion, although it is not a question of a liturgical event. At the same time, the geographical scope of a particular council is not subject to a theological definition, which concerns only that structurally the council is an adequate expression of the communion that exists between local Eucharistic congregations. In our example of a village, we should be talking about

12. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, pp. 136-137. For the relationship between different ministries, see The Ecclesiology of the Orthodox Tradition, Search 7 (1984): 42-53. For a relative understanding of power, see The Nature of the Unity We Seek - The Response of the Orthodox Observer, One in Christ 24 (1988): 342-348. On the perichoretic nature of church services, as well as rejecting the idea that the bishop's ministry is "above it [the community] as power in Itself", see:" The Church as Communion", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 38 (1994): 7-19. For Zizioulas 'most succinct and successful presentation of the idea of a mutually constitutive relationship between" one " and "many" , see Communion and Otherness, Sobornost 16 (1994): 3-16.

13. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, pp. 133-136. См. также: "The Development of Conciliar Structures to the Time of the First Ecumenical Council" (1968), in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement, pp. 34-41. World Council of Churches.

page 366
that the primates of the Eucharistic assemblies of individual villages located at a certain distance from each other constitute a council for the purpose of expressing the communion of these local Eucharistic assemblies. Theology points to structures, not geographical boundaries.

Here it should be noted that I speak hypothetically, that is, what I have said does not reflect the current situation in the Orthodox Church. Hypothetically, the primates of the Eucharistic congregations gather for a council of a certain geographical region, whereas in reality, within a certain geographical region, the bishop represents various parishes and thus also the primates of the Eucharistic congregations, which are priests. It is in this connection that some have pointed out the inconsistency of Zizioulas ' Eucharistic ecclesiology. According to the latter, if the Eucharist is the presence of the eschatological Body of Christ, then every Eucharistic assembly is the Church, the fullness of the Church of God. That is, every Eucharistic assembly is a catholic Church, understood as the fullness of the Body of Christ. According to this relational ontology, catholicity does not mean the universal church, understood as something that complements all local churches. If the fullness of catholicity is iconically manifested in each local Eucharistic assembly, then we can assume that each Eucharistic assembly is a local church. This is the statement of Nikolai Afanasyev, which Ziziulas rejects 14. According to the latter, the concept of a local church is essentially connected with the bishop. If in the modern structure the bishop is responsible for the diocese, which is made up of many Eucharistic congregations, i.e. parishes, then the local church is the diocese, not the parish. There is a tension in Zizioulas 'thought here, since the Eucharistic assembly is the fullness of the catholic Church, and not the "local" church associated with the bishop. Namely, "local" churches form the basis of the cathedral's structure.

It is not entirely clear why Zizioulas simply did not identify the parish with the local church, and the diocese with what many local churches form. At the same time, the bishop would also represent the unity of many local churches that form a particular diocese. At the same time, you can not be afraid that this approach will blur the border

14. Zizioulas, Being as Communion, pp. 132-138.

page 367
between a priest and a bishop, which he accuses Afanasyev of. In other words, if the Church is identified with the Eucharistic congregation, then why aren't all local Eucharistic celebrants bishops who simply choose one from their midst to symbolically represent the unity of local Eucharistic congregations in each geographical region - as, say, in the case of a metropolitan, that is, a bishop in which many are represented in different parts of the world? the face of one? In addition, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the current structure of the Orthodox Church hardly agrees with the logic of relational ontology, which is the basis of Zizioulas ' Eucharistic ecclesiology. This may indicate the limitations of such ecclesiology or the presence in the Orthodox tradition of two hardly compatible trajectories of ecclesiological thought.

This tension between the real state of affairs in the Orthodox Church and what can be invoked on the basis of the logic of Eucharistic ecclesiology does not negate the strength of the theological statement that the fullness of the Church is present in the Eucharistic assembly, and that the structure of communion assumed in the Eucharist serves as the basis for structuring communion between Eucharistic communities. The structure of the council is a logical extension of the structure of communion within the Eucharistic assembly, even if the geographical boundaries of the communities (dioceses) participating in the council are arbitrary and not subject to theological definition. If the council reveals the communion that exists between churches in a particular geographical region, then by extension, the first-class (protos)are the main ones. These councils may also meet with the protos of other councils at yet another council to express the communion that exists between the churches they represent. But again, the council, which covers a wider geographical area, will have to choose the one who will preside over it, that is, the first-ranking one. This is how we reach the pinnacle in the sense that there should be a council that represents and reveals the communion that exists between the churches on a global scale. As Zizioulas himself says, " through the conciliar system, we do not come to the universal Church; rather, we come to the communion of Churches. In this case, universality is identical to communion. " 15 It is inconceivable that-

15. Zizioulas, "Primacy in the Church", p. 268.

page 368
such a council would not be able to work without a chairman chosen by the bishops from among themselves or one who is endowed with the status of primate. Zizioulas is right when he says that " conciliarity cannot exist without primacy. There has never been and cannot be a council without a protos. " 16 Who will be this protos at the ecumenical level cannot be determined theologically; but the theological requirement that a world council should have a president who represents the universal communion of Orthodox Churches is well-founded within the framework of Eucharistic ecclesiology.

Bearing in mind the Eucharistic justification of the concept of episcopal primacy - within the framework of the Eucharistic divine service and various councils in geographical scope, up to the universal church - it should be recognized that the statement made in the document of the Russian Orthodox Church that "at different levels of ecclesiastical existence, historically formed primacy has different nature and different sources is theologically not entirely accurate. These levels are: (1) the episcopate (diocese), (2) the autocephalous Local Church, and (3) the Ecumenical Church."17 First, the source of primacy is not determined by geographical dimensions, since the very design of organizational structures such as the diocese and the autocephalous church is not amenable to theological justification. In other words, there are absolutely no theological arguments to suggest that the Church of Greece should be autocephalous, and its borders should coincide with the borders of the Greek state. It is absolutely indisputable that the current configuration of so - called autocephalous churches has nothing to do with ecclesiology and is connected with historical circumstances, especially - ironically-with modern Western nationalism. The source of primacy is the Eucharistic nature of the Church, which requires structures of communion that reflect the communion that exists between the various Eucharistic congregations. The fact that there is primacy at the various levels that currently exist - the diocese and the autocephalous church - has nothing to do with these specific structures as such; these structures gain legitimacy due to the fact that they reflect - albeit geographically

16. Zizioulas, "Recent Discussion on Primacy", p. 279.

17. The position of the Moscow Patriarchate on primacy in the Ecumenical Church. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 17.09.2015].

page 369
in this aspect, and arbitrarily-the dynamics of communion, which is carried out in the Eucharist. In other words, there is nothing in Orthodox theology that requires the existence of so-called autocephalous churches in their current form, but only structures of communion between local churches, whose geographical boundaries have emerged historically and are not indisputable. If this is the case, then the sources and nature of primacy cannot differ depending on the difference in geographically defined areas of church communion.

If we talk about primacy in terms of space, we should start from the most fundamental level, that is, from the Eucharistic assembly, which has spatial boundaries, but at the same time seems to be on the other side of time and space, since it iconically expresses the eschaton. At the same time, one Eucharistic assembly presupposes that there are other Eucharistic assemblies, and this, in turn, indicates universal unity. In other words, "the nature of the Eucharist indicates the simultaneity of the local and the universal in ecclesiology." 18 There must be non-liturgical structures that reflect this universal unity and are shaped by the Eucharist, even if they are not themselves Eucharistic. For purely pragmatic reasons, there should be structures of communion between the individual Eucharistic assembly and the universal unity of all Orthodox Christians. How they are defined geographically - through imperial structures, as in the Christian Roman Empire, through a national idea, or through the idea of the so - called "Russian world" - depends on random historical circumstances and is therefore subject to challenge or change. But these intermediate structures of communion are meant to be combined into a structure of communion that reflects the universal unity of all Orthodox Christians.

Therefore, it is not entirely accurate to say that, according to Zizioulas ' logic, "such primacy requires the existence of a permanent conciliar institution that unites all bishops (in this case, the entire Orthodox Church). But such councils did not exist in the past (Ecumenical councils were not permanent bodies), and the possibility of their existence remains

18. Zizioulas, "Primacy in the Church", p. 266.

page 370
a matter of the future " 19. This argument implies that due to the absence in the history of the Orthodox Church of a permanent conciliar body at the ecumenical level, it is impossible to speak of universal primacy. One forgets that Ecumenical councils were imperial councils called by the Emperor; in other words, the way church communion was expressed at the ecumenical level was influenced by the imperial structures themselves. But this does not mean that after the end of the empire, church structures expressing ecumenical communion cannot exist, even as a permanent body. Nor does it follow that the need for universal primacy is based on random historical circumstances, since history itself is subject to theological adjustment. As Zizioulas says: "The Church does not cease to be an event of communion when it reaches the universal level. The Church, as a community of local churches, also needs conciliarity at the ecumenical level, and if it needs conciliarity, then it also needs primacy, because there can be no council without primacy. " 20
The path from a local Eucharistic assembly to structures that express the ecumenical communion of Orthodox Christians is clear, and it presupposes episcopal primacy-even at the ecumenical level. It is difficult to understand why some Orthodox Christians deny this necessity, especially if we keep in mind the existence of a certain type of primacy at the local and regional levels. Zizioulas correctly observes that " Orthodox Christians tend to ignore certain facts and ideas present in their own tradition and faith, such as the presence and function of the protos in each local church and its conciliar life."21. It is simply wrong to say that primacy at the parish and regional levels has different geographical and even historical sources, which then leads to a denial of primacy at the ecumenical level. Orthodox Christians should stop talking about whether there should be an ecumenical episcopal primacy, and start a fruitful discussion about why it should exist.

19. Shishkov, A. (2014) "Metropolitan John Zizioulas on Primacy in the Church", Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 104: 212. [For the Russian text, see: Shishkov A.V. Primacy in the Church in the theology of Metropolitan John of Pergamon (Zizioulas) / / Vestnik RHGA. 2014. Vol. 15. N 1. P. 37. - Editor's note]

20. Zizioulas, "Conciliarity and Primacy", p. 31.

21. Zizioulas, "Recent Discussions on Primacy", p. 284.

page 371
it is necessary and how it should be. These are the questions that should be answered.

To the question " why?" the answer has already been given: because it is necessary to update the communication between churches on a global level. The need for primacy that ensures this communion is obvious not only theologically, but also because of the lack of real communion of Orthodox Churches on a global level. One of the greatest challenges for Orthodoxy is nationalism, because in Orthodox Churches, national identity always suppresses church unity. Orthodox Christians often talk about the need to inculturate faith and that national identity, which is also an Orthodox identity , is an example of the embodiment of faith not only in an individual believer, but also in a specific cultural matrix. Without arguing that this incarnation should extend to a material reality beyond the individual lives of Christians, it should be noted that the current state of Orthodox Churches and Orthodox identities often demonstrates a blurring of the boundaries between ethnic, national, and Orthodox identities, which calls into question communion between churches. During the Balkan Wars, why did the Orthodox identity of the belligerents not encourage them to find a different solution to the contradictions that existed between them? Why did the Greeks, even if they had historically justified arguments to consider the usurpation of the name "Macedonia" by others unfair, completely forget that Macedonians who do not consider themselves Greeks are also Orthodox? And how did we come to the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict in general?

The blurring of the boundaries between ethnic, national, and Orthodox identities is particularly evident in the long-known and yet unanswerable question of the attitude of the so-called mother Churches to those Orthodox who live outside these churches. Now these latter are under the jurisdiction of their mother church, and this means that these relations are built on the principle of the corresponding ethnic and national identity. But this cannot be theologically justified. Ecclesiologically, it is impossible to justify the statement that " the modern Orthodox autocephalous Church consists, as a rule, of two parts: the canonical territory and the diaspora. Bishops in the Diaspora are administratively subordinate to the council of the autocephalous Church, not to the episcopal assembly

page 372
a specific diaspora region. Therefore, in Orthodox ecclesiology, the above principle should be correlated with the level of the autocephalous church, and not with the regional level " 22. The Russian Orthodox Church also seeks to legitimize the status quo both through the recent proclamation of the so-called "Russian world", and by asserting that " in the Orthodox tradition, the canonical community is considered to be that which is part of the autocephalous As a result, it remains in eucharistic unity with other canonical Local Churches"23. There are absolutely no theological grounds for the status quo, nor are there any grounds for the so-called "autocephalous churches" as they currently exist in the Orthodox consciousness, that is, organized around ethnic identity or such non-theological concepts as"Russian world". There are theological grounds for structures of communion that are built spatially from the individual Eucharistic congregation through regional structures to the universal church; and it is obvious that the current understanding of autocephalous churches impedes communion.

The current status quo requires a theological correction in the form of an ecumenical episcopal primacy that would symbolize the transnational and transethnic unity of Orthodox Christians. The Ecumenical First Hierarch could call all Orthodox Christians to a transnational identity, which does not necessarily mean denying a particular cultural or ethnic identity. In order to perform this function, the primal must be able to symbolize such unity. Who will be such a leader cannot be determined theologically, but only on the basis of historical tradition. The bishop of Rome had primacy not for any theological reason, but because of historical circumstances connected with the legend of Peter and the Roman Empire. The current status quo immediately excludes patriarchs or archbishops of national churches, because when you see such a bishop, you see not world Orthodoxy, but only Orthodoxy in Russia or Greece. For example, the Patriarch of Moscow will never be able to perform the function of an ecumenical episcopal primate.-

22. Zizioulas, "Recent Discussions on Primacy", p. 212.

23. Document "Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on Primacy in the Universal Church". [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 17.09.2015].

page 373
This is because when you see the Patriarch of Moscow, all you see is Orthodoxy in Russia.

For historical reasons, the primacy of the Orthodox Church at the world level is the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch.24 These historical reasons are well known, but here it is important to emphasize once again that there is no theological justification for the primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople - there is only a long historical tradition. If communion with Rome were restored, then the ecumenical primacy would pass to the Bishop of Rome. In addition, there is another reason that the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch is the best choice: at present, he is the only first hierarch of the autocephalous Church who can symbolize world Orthodoxy without being tied to any national identity. This is partly due to the fact that the Church of Constantinople is currently located in a non-Orthodox country, whose government is successfully systematically weakening the Orthodox community in Turkey. This is also due to the fact that the Orthodox in Constantinople and Asia Minor, even if they are Greek-speaking, have always considered themselves not Hellenes, but Romans: they still recognize themselves as the heirs of Roman Christian civilization. In fact, when people all over the world see the Ecumenical Patriarch, they see universal Orthodoxy, and not Russian or Greek Orthodoxy, as would be the case if they saw the Patriarch of Moscow or the Archbishop of Athens. Thus, not for theological reasons, the ecumenical primacy among the Orthodox churches belongs to the Archbishop of Constantinople, but for historical reasons that other Orthodox Churches recognize; but also because the Archbishop of Constantinople, who is not associated with any national interests, can ensure the worldwide unity of the Orthodox Churches by symbolically representing transnational Orthodoxy. As such a global symbol of Orthodoxy, the bearer of ecumenical primacy should call upon all Orthodox Churches to transcend their national, ethnic and cultural identities and do what is necessary for world communion, which is based on the Eucharist.

24. С позицией А. Папаниколау полемизирует в своей статье А. Шишков. См. текущий номер, с. 243-245. - Примеч. ред.

стр. 374
In order to promote the emergence of a primate who could symbolize the unity of the world Orthodox Church, such a primate may be chosen by the Orthodox Churches, so as to prevent the primate from being closely associated with a particular national or ethnic identity. In addition, the primate must be surrounded by conciliar structures that themselves express the Ecumenical Church. Finally, if the primacy of the episcopate is such that it expresses the unity of the Universal Church, and if the council is to be a real structure of communion, then it is absolutely necessary that such structures function with the participation of the laity. Without the laity, a council of bishops will look like a house of lords without a house of commons. If the conciliar process is organized in such a way that the discussion takes place among bishops, then bishops must find mechanisms that allow them to hear the voice of the laity. As for the Pan-Orthodox council, it is necessary to prepare and discuss at the regional level, which would precede the next level of preparation of the Pan-Orthodox council. Otherwise, such councils will reflect not the communion that takes place in the Eucharist, but the pyramid structure that is being built from top to bottom - namely, what is the subject of accusations made by Orthodox Christians against Catholics.

From the point of view of decision-making, the leader should not be a dictator. The decision-making process itself should determine the communication that the council is intended to encourage, but the way decisions are made within the council should not be tied to any one model. The Council should only ensure that the full Body of Christ, which includes the laity, is involved in the preparation of the council and the relevant discussions (including the synod of the autocephalous Church). It would be ideal if the council reached consensus, but requiring all decisions to be taken by consensus would be impractical; such a requirement would make the council, especially at the ecumenical level, something like the UN Security Council, that is, equally ineffective. There are no theological criteria for determining the way decisions are made (such as a two-thirds vote or a simple majority); this method must be developed as a result of discussion. The demand for consensus does not encourage communication, but rather hinders it. Finally, if a council is called, the churches are required to participate in the council's discussions until the end, that is, they should not have the right to participate in the council's discussions.

page 375
the right to leave the council or try to suspend its work if the course of discussion contradicts the interests of a particular church.

The need for ecumenical primacy is also evident from a practical point of view, due to the lack of responsibility among Orthodox Churches, which becomes a problem when their silence condones discrimination and even violence against minorities (such as LGBT people) in the countries of the "mother churches". Irresponsibility can also lead to theologically questionable statements , such as the claim that sinners have lost the image of God, or that children born to surrogate mothers should not be baptized unless the biological parents repent. 25 No doubt there are differences in liturgical practice between Orthodox churches, which makes Orthodox worship so rich; but refusal of baptism has no precedent in the Orthodox Church, and such statements cannot be made without the consent of other Orthodox Churches. Mutual responsibility cannot arise without structures of communication at the universal level that require universal primacy.

The primate must have real power to oversee, regulate, and initiate communication structures that will make churches accountable to each other. The Orthodox agree on one thing: such an authority cannot have universal jurisdiction. At the same time, the denial of universal jurisdiction has nothing to do with self - identification through opposition to the West-such jurisdiction is not justified theologically, since it hinders communication between churches. At the same time, the power of the leader cannot be reduced to the primacy of honor. It is "ecclesiologically and canonically questionable"to limit oneself to the primacy of honor. 26 First, it contradicts the fact that bishops who are primates at the level of the diocese, metropolia, and autocephalous Church are invested with real authority that makes communion possible within their jurisdiction. If this is the case, then there is no reason to say that such authority cannot be vested in the primordial one on the universal level. Second, the primacy of honor

25. See the document of the Russian Orthodox Church "On the baptism of infants born with the help of a "surrogate mother" (2013) [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481024.html, accessed from 17.09.2015].

26. Zizioulas, J. "Recent Discussions on Primacy", p. 277.

page 376
There is little that can be gained if the first-born is not a visible, though not particularly powerful, symbol of world Orthodoxy. The primacy of honor is the status quo, but the current system is dysfunctional.

The status quo in the Orthodox Church on a global level is not theologically justified. Those who believe that all is well should offer theological arguments, not just refer to historical or canonical precedents. Indeed, there is absolutely no way to justify the status quo theologically. We need theological criticism that would allow the churches to get out of the current situation of lack of communion. As Callistus Ware pointed out, no one has yet offered a convincing argument to refute the claim that the fullness of the Church is actualized in the Eucharist. And if so, then the structures of conciliar communion must be created and function at the ecumenical level in order to demonstrate the visible unity of the Orthodox Churches. Such structures necessarily presuppose some form of primacy, endowed with real power, creating a relationship of communion between the churches.

Translated from English by Alexander Kyrlezhev

Bibliography/ References

Document of the Russian Orthodox Church "On the baptism of infants born with the help of a "surrogate mother "" / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2013. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481024.html, accessed from 17.09.2015].

The position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 17.09.2015].

Shishkov A.V. Primacy in the Church in the theology of Metropolitan Ioann (Ziziulas) of Pergamon / / Vestnik RKHGA. 2014. Vol. 15. N 1. pp. 32-41.

Ayres, L. (2004) Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berger, C. (2007) "Does the Eucharist Make the Church? An Ecclesiological Comparison of Staniloae and Zizioulas", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 51(1): 23-70.

Dokument Russkoi pravoslavnoi tserkvi "O kreshchenii mladentsev, rodivshikhsia pri pomoshchi 'surrogatnoi materi'" [The document of the Russian Orthodox Church "On the baptism of babies born with the help of 'surrogate mother'"] (2013),

page 377
Ofitsial'nyi sait moskovskogo Patriarkhata [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481024.html, dostup ot 17.09.2015].

Erickson, J. (2011) "The Church in modern Orthodox thought: towards a baptismal ecclesiology", International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church 11(2-3): 137-151.

Lubac, H. de (1956) The Splendour of the Church. London: Sheed and Ward.

Nichols, A. (1989) Theology in the Russian Diaspora: Church, fathers, Eucharist in Nikolai Afanase'v. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Orthodox Constructions of the West (2013). Eds. George Demacopoulos and Aristotle Papanikolaou. Bronx, New York: Fordham University Press.

Papanikolaou, A. (2006) Being with God: Trinity, Apophaticism and Divine-Human Communion. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Papanikolaou, A. (2016) "Primacy in the Thought of John [Zizioulas], Metropolitan of Pergamon", Primacy in the Church: Reflections on the Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis. Volume 1: Historical and Theological Perspectives. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.

Pozitsiia Moskovskogo Patriarkhata po voprosu o pervenstve vo Vselenskoi Tserkvi" ["The position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the primacy in the Universal Church"], Ofitsial'nyi sait moskovskogo Patriarkhata [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, dostup ot 17.09.2015].

Shishkov, A. (2014) "Metropolitan John Zizioulas on Primacy in the Church", Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 104: 212

Shishkov, A. (2014) "Pervenstvo v Cerkvi v bogoslovii mitropolita Pergamskogo Ioanna (Ziziulasa)" [Metropolitan John Zizioulas on Primacy in the Church], Vestnik RHGA 15(1): 32-41.

Ware, K. (2011) "Sobornost and eucharistic ecclesiology: Aleksei Khomiakov and his successors", International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, 11: 203-231.

Zizioulas, J. (1968) "The Development of Conciliar Structures to the Time of the First Ecumenical Council", in Councils and the Ecumenical Movement. World Council of Churches, p. 34-41.

Zizioulas, J. (1972) "Ordination - A Sacrament? An Orthodox Reply", Concilium 4: 33-39.

Zizioulas, J. (1984) "The Ecclesiology of the Orthodox Tradition", Search 7: 42-53.

Zizioulas, J. (1985) Being as Communion. NY: SVSPress.

Zizioulas, J. (1988) "The Nature of the Unity We Seek - The Response of the Orthodox Observer", One in Christ 24: 342-348.

Zizioulas, J. (1994) "Communion and Otherness", Sobornost 16: 3-16.

Zizioulas, J. (1994) "The Church as Communion", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 38: 7-19.

Zizioulas, J. (2010) "Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach", in The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World Today, ed. Fr. Gregory Edwards. Alhambra, California: Sebastian Press.

Zizioulas, J. (2015) "Conciliarity and Primacy", Theologia 86(2): 19-34.

page 378


© biblioteka.by

Permanent link to this publication:

https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/The-Eucharist-cathedrals-and-Primacy

Similar publications: LBelarus LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Aleksandr StepanovContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://biblioteka.by/Stepanov

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Aristotle Papanikolaou, The Eucharist, cathedrals and Primacy // Minsk: Belarusian Electronic Library (BIBLIOTEKA.BY). Updated: 13.01.2025. URL: https://biblioteka.by/m/articles/view/The-Eucharist-cathedrals-and-Primacy (date of access: 08.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - Aristotle Papanikolaou:

Aristotle Papanikolaou → other publications, search: Libmonster BelarusLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
ПАРАД ЛАУРЕАТОВ
8 hours ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
Библиографические листки
Yesterday · From Беларусь Анлайн
Человек больше войны
4 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
55 ЛЕТ ПОБЕДЫ. БРЕСТСКАЯ КРЕПОСТЬ ДЕРЖИТ ОБОРОНУ
Catalog: История 
4 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
CREATORS OF THE KUSKOVSKY ENSEMBLE
6 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
ВСЕ-ТАКИ ОНА ВЕРТИТСЯ. ВЗОЙТИ НА КОСТЕР ИЛИ ОТРЕЧЬСЯ У КОСТРА?
Catalog: Разное 
8 days ago · From Беларусь Анлайн
FEUDAL REBELLION OF 1480
Catalog: История 
8 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
ON THE METHOD OF COMPILING CHRONICLES AND STATISTICS OF THE WORKING-CLASS MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA DURING THE PERIOD OF CAPITALISM (1861-February 1917)
9 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
THE FATE OF THE FIRST PRINTER'S PUBLICATIONS
9 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov
Composition of delegates to the First and Second Congresses of Soviets of the USSR
9 days ago · From Aleksandr Stepanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

BIBLIOTEKA.BY - Belarusian digital library, repository, and archive

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

The Eucharist, cathedrals and Primacy
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: BY LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Biblioteka.by - Belarusian digital library, repository, and archive ® All rights reserved.
2006-2025, BIBLIOTEKA.BY is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Belarus


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android