draft

EUCHARISTIC THEOLOGY, THE CONSENSUS FIDELIUM,

AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THEOLOGY TO THE ECCLESIAL WITNESS

   Introductory remarks

I have deliberately chosen to tackle the theme of this XII Catholic-Orthodox Colloquium on «The Limits and Responsibilities of Theologians in the Formation of Convictions and Opinions of their Churches and in the consensus fidelium» (Bari, 16-17 December 1999) from the perspective indicated in the title, because it can much better express the theological tradition of Eastern Christianity, for which I can better speak. For obvious reasons I will limit myself to the Orthodox “theology”, and not to contemporary ecclesiastical practice of the various autocephali Churches.

Having, nevertheless, stated that, I feel obliged to underline that I wholeheartedly adhere to the view that “the fundamental principles of Christian spirituality are the same in the East and in the West”.[1] Even if it has become a regular custom to make a clear-cut distinction between East and West - which is both legitimate, and also by no means divisive - I am also convinced that a dynamic encounter between the two is absolutely necessary. After all the authentic catholicity of the Church must include both East and West, not only because a synthesis of these two will enrich both traditions, but mainly because it will enhance our understanding of the theme of this conference. In theological circles it is generally believed that the western theology normally stresses the historical element in ecclesiology, theology, and ethics. And this is an important element in affirming Christianity’s social responsibility. At the other end, the Orthodox theology, even if it shows a tendency to detach the Church from history, it is nevertheless a constant reminder of the eschatological dimension of our Church.

With regard to the terms used in the title, few preliminary observations, are necessary. (i) First of all I speak of “witness” rather than of “views” or “convictions”, which is not only a wider term, but it has in addition clear “ecclesial” connotations. Witness has to do with the essence and the identity of the Church and not just with the articulation and the declaration of her beliefs. It is in this strictly ecclesiological perspective that I also understand the controversial term “consensus fidelium”.

(ii) Secondly, I prefer to speak of “theology”, rather that of “theologians”, in order to dissociate the function of theology from its strictly academic expression. Having said that, I  do not wish to undermine the importance of the scholarly and professional ministry of the Church. The former title carries with it a prophetic and critical character, whereas the latter a more conventional one; after all theology is (and/or should be) the prophetic consciousness of the Church, which cannot be limited only to the theological elaboration of the truth.

(iii) This brings us to the third preliminary remark I would like to make: i.e. the priority of the eucharistic experience over all theological views and convictions, the priority of communion over faith,  of ecclesiology over theology  in its regular meaning. It is time, I believe, for modern theology to distance itself as much as possible from the dominant syndrome imposed by the post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation hegemony over all scholarly (and in some cases ecclesiastical) theological outlook, an outlook which can be summarized as follows: what constitutes the core of our Christian faith, cannot be extracted but from the expressed theological views, from a certain depositum fidei,  be it the Bible, the Tradition (or both), the writings of the Fathers, the canons and certain decisions of the Councils; an understanding of the Church’s aletheia, which leads to the importance and necessity of some kind of magisterium. It is quite encouraging that nowadays more and more voices are heard, which make serious references to the eucharistic communion event that has been responsible and produced these views.

(iv) Obviously, then, my fourth and last preliminary remark has to do with what I call “eucharistic theology”.[2] In addition to the reasons underlined above, I preferred to approach the main theme of this conference from the overall perspective of “eucharistic theology”, not only because- as I indicated earlier - it better expresses the tradition to which I belong, but also because this was in general terms the perspective from which our official theological dialogue (Catholic-Orthodox) has unanimously decided to proceed.[3] I am referring, of course, to the initial stages of that dialogue, before its eventual breakdown, for which I honestly regret, caused by the unfortunate introduction of the - burning of course, but nevertheless practical and hence secondary, and of course divisive - issue of “uniatism”.

In my presentation, therefore, and within the time allocated to me, I propose to: (1) explain what is an Orthodox perspective; (2) give a brief account of how the term  “eucharistic theology” came out, and what is meant by it; and (3) draw some conclusions concerning the process, as well as the limits and responsibilities of theologians in articulating, expressing and preserving the truth.

1. What is an Orthodox perspective.

According to her most serious interpreters Orthodoxy (Orthodoxia) means the wholeness of the people of God who share the right conviction (orthe doxa=right opinion) concerning the event of God's salvation in Christ and his Church, and the right expression (orthopraxia) of this faith. Orthodoxia leads to the maximum possible application in orthopraxia  of charismatic life in the freedom of the Holy Spirit in all aspects of daily social life.  "We should never forget,” the late Nikos Nissiotis reminded, “that this term is given  to the One, (Holy, Catholic and) Apostolic Church as a whole over against the heretics who, of their own choice, split from the main body of the Church. The term is exclusive for all those, who willingly fall away from the historical stream of life of the One Church but it is inclusive for those who profess their spiritual belonging to that stream".[4]

The question is how can one profess his/her "orthodoxy"? How can  he/she establish it? On what ground and from what sources? The Roman Catholics have Vatican  II to draw from; the Orthodox do not. The Lutherans have an Augsburg Confession of their own; the Orthodox not, and they also lack the equivalent of a Luther of Calvin, to mention just two from the Reformation movement, who could give them their theological identity. The only authoritative sources they possess are in fact common to the rest of the Christians: the Bible and the Tradition. How can one establish a distinctly Orthodox view on a basis which is common to non-Orthodox as well?

Some Orthodox,[5] insist that Othodox theology is not a matter of drawing from special sources, but of interpreting the sources the Orthodox share with the rest of the Christians; in other words it is a matter of theological presuppositions, which suggests a certain problematic and method not always familiar to the non-Orthodox. Naturally then, all their theological viewpoints come only as the logical consequence of these presuppositions. However, the essence of Orthodoxy, vis-a-vis Western theology in its entirety, i.e. Catholic and Protestant,  is even beyond such theological presuppositions: I would dare say it is a way of life, hence the importance of her liturgical tradition. Of course, theological presuppositions and liturgical experience are very closely connected to each other. It is exactly for this reason that the Orthodox have placed the Liturgy on such a prominent place in their theology. It is widely held that the liturgical dimension is perhaps the only safe criterion in describing the Orthodox perspective.

In a historic statement to the world Christian community George Florovsky declared that “the Church is first of all a worshipping community. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second. The lex orandi has a  privileged priority in the life of the Christian Church. The lex credendi  depends on the devotional experience and vision of the Church,” or - to put it more scharply - on the authentic (i.e. liturgical) identity of the Church.[6] Some of course went into extremes, identifying Orthodoxy with a sort of panliturgism,  not taking into account that the profound meaning of Christian Liturgy is determined by its center and climax: the Eucharist.[7]

Today, if one wants to approach, and reflect on, any specific issue, from an Orthodox perspective, it is the eucharistic theology  in its broad sense that should guide his/her effort. In my view,[8] in determining the quintessence of Christian theology one should avoid the temptation of ignoring the primary experience, i.e. the ecclesial/eucharistic eschatological experience, the matrix of all theology, the important factor that has in fact produced all theological interpretations of this experience; but it would also be a methodological fallacy to project later theological interpretations into this primary eschatological experience, which was clearly determined by the Kingdom-of-God reality and vision.

It is my firm conviction that out of the three main characteristics that generally constitute the Orthodox theology, namely its “eucharistic”, “trinitarian”, and “hesyhastic” dimension, only the first one can bear a universal and ecumenical significance. If the last dimension and important feature marks a decisive development in eastern Christian theology and spirituality after the eventual Schism between East and West, a development that has determined, together with other factors, the Orthodox Church’s identity in recent history; and if the trinitarian dimension constitutes the supreme expression of Christian theology, ever produced by human thought in its attempt to grasp the mystery of God, after Christianity’s dynamic encounter with the Greek culture; it was, nevertheless, only because of the eucharistic experience, the matrix of all theology and spirituality of our Church, that all theological and spiritual climaxes in the Church of Christ have been actually achieved.[9]

  3. The Eucharistic Ecclesiology

The eucharistic theology, however, was not exclusively an eastern theological product;  it was rather the child of the ecumenical era. It was during the time of the ecumenical enthusiasm of the first post-war years, that was first theologically articulated. More precisely, it was during the long period of the preliminary deliberations of Vatican II that was first came into being. Today, it has become almost an axiom that with this council important steps were taken towards a reconsideration, and towards a rediscovery of the ecclesial identity of this major tradition of Christianity, with multiple effects also for other traditions, the Orthodox included.[10] Perhaps the “infallibility” has not been clearly renounced, and the “primacy” still determines the basic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  None can deny, however, that with Vatican II the institutional and extremely juridical understanding of the Church was officially replaced by the mystic - and according to many people by a eucharistic - one.[11] The characteristic slogan during the theological deliberations before and during the council was: “the Eucharist makes the Church”; some talked about restoration in this council of the unbroken relationship between “Eucharist” and “Church” (corpus verum and corpus mysticum), a relationship which in the long period of high scholasticism was dramatically disconnected, leading as a result to an understanding of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist not as the  mystery of the Church, but as just one Sacrament among others, and in some cases even inferior to the Sacrament of the Priesthood,.

No one can deny that the most influential scholars in the preparation of the Lumen Gentium, the basic ecclesiological decree of Vatican II, were: Henri de Lubac,[12] the ecclesiologist who greatly influenced cardinal J. Ratzinger,[13] one of the leading figures of the Council, and Bernard Botte,[14] the Belgian Benedictine liturgist and profound expert of the eastern liturgical tradition.[15]  But it would be quite unfair to ignore the important contribution by N. Afanassieff, the Orthodox theologian who almost ten years before the official opening of the proceedings of Vatican II entered into the theological discussion, speaking for the first time of the eucharistic ecclesiology,[16] a term which from that time was destined to constitute a basic term in all ecclesiological discussions.[17]

This eminent historian and theologian suggested that from the very early years of the Church’s life there were two clearly distinguished views about the Church: the widespread - even today - ”universal ecclesiology”, and the “eucharistic ecclesiology”. Afanassieff, in addition, has convincingly showed the priority and the authenticity of the latter. According to Afanassieff the effect of the universal ecclesiology was so strong, that it seemed to the only possible options, thus becoming more or less an ecclesiological axiom, without which every single thought about Church seemed almost  impossible. It was Cyprian of Carthage, he argued, who provided for the first time the theological foundation of the universal ecclesiology, while the connection between the roman empire and the roman pontiff on the  one hand, and religious life from the time of Constantine the Great onwards on the other, facilitated its wide acceptance.[18] However, the universal ecclesiology was not the only one. And what is even more important it was not the original ecclesiology. It took the place of a different ecclesiology, which Afanassieff for the first time called “eucharistic”,[19] thus inaugurating a new era in the ecumenical and ecclesiological discussions.[20]

We do not propose to enter into more details of this radical ecclesiological theory; those interested can refer to the latest improved edition of Afanassieff’s study, as well as to the (corrective, as they are called, suggestions to the positions of Afanassieff)  ecclesiological studies by (Metropolitan of Pergamon) John Zizioulas.[21] We only want to underline that, by using the eucharistic ecclesiology as a tool, the Eucharist is interpreted as the only expression of unity of the Church,[22] and the criterion and point of reference of all the other mysteries, and of course of the priesthood, and consequently of the office of the bishop. That is why the catholicity of the Church is manifested in every local Church. “Wherever there is a eucharistic meeting there lives Christ too, there is also the Church of God in Christ”.[23]

What is, however, even more important for eucharistic ecclesiology (and by extension also for eucharistic theology), is the underlining of the idea of community (hence its connection with Pneumatology). The universal ecclesiology, on the other hand,  places more emphasis on the external structure  (hence the importance it gives to Christology, and consequently to the role of the bishop, and also to the papal primacy).  But in this case first in importance and extremely determinative for unity and the expression, articulation and preservation of the truth is the role of the bishop, and consequently the Eucharist is seen only as one of his functions.

The eucharistic ecclesiology, in addition, underlines the eschatological dimension of the Church. It also understands all the Church’s orders, and especially those of the ordained priesthood, not as higher (from a hierarchical perspective) offices within the Church,  but as images of the authentic eschatological Kingdom of God. Contrary to the eucharistic ecclesiology, the universal ecclesiology, having as its point of departure the historical  dimension of the Church, understands unity, truth and other related aspects the Church, such as e.g. the apostolic succession, in a linear and not in an eschatological way;[24] that is why the bishop, even when he is understood as a type and/or image of the Christ, has a clear priority over the eucharistic community, and even over the Eucharist itself. The Sacrament, therefore, of Priesthood theoretically surpasses the Sacrament  of the Eucharist.

4. The process of determining the consensus fidelium and  the ecclesial witness                            

What are, then, the consequences of all these for the proper understanding of the consensus fidelium,  and how can an authentic ecclesial witness be achieved from a eucharistic perspective? If the Eucharist, in its authentic understanding, is the proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom of God, i.e. an image  and a symbol of an alternative reality, which was conceived before all creation by God the Father in his mystical plan (the mysterion  in the biblical sense), was inaugurated by our Lord, and is permanently sustained by the Holy Spirit, then one is automatically lead to a  different understanding of our Church’s identity, and consequently to a different process of determining the truth, and a different expression of the ecclesial witness in the world. Naturally then the limits and responsibilities of the ecclesial community in all these are reckoned and measured in a quite different manner.

a) First of all the close connection between the Eucharist and the Kingdom, i.e. the Church’s eschatological dimension, has also some bearing both on the moral and social responsibility of the Church, and on articulating, proclaiming and preserving the truth. In other words, a eucharistic (i.e. eschatological) understanding of the Church has significant consequences both on ethics (social or moral) and on dogmatics. And in the end, it covers the entire spectrum of the ecclesial witness. It was mainly because the Kingdom is expected to be culminated at the eschata that all the major theologians of the Church, from the normative period of the apostolic fathers (starting with St. Ignatius) onwards, wanted, in one way or another, to keep before the eyes of the faithful the eschatological vision and understanding of the Church through the episcopocentric structure. This episcopocentric structure, however , although  in both the Catholic and the Orthodox tradition remains an essential part of their theology, it is only in the Orthodox liturgical tradition that is clearly understood eschatologically. There the bishop, as primus inter pares presiding in love over the eucharistic community, is never understood as a vicar or representative, or ambassador of Christ,  but as an image  of Christ. And this is also true with the rest of the ministries of the Church: they are not parallel to, or given by, but identical with those of, Christ.[25] That is why the liturgical  life of the Church is always centered around the resurrection. For the Church exists not because Christ died on the cross, but because he is risen from the dead, thus becoming the aparche of all humanity.

To speak in more generally terms, the issue of the ecclesial witness is identical with the problem of overcoming the evil in the world. And from the perspective of the eucharistic theology this is basically neither a moral nor a doctrinal issue; it is primarily—and even exclusively—an ecclesial one. The moral and social responsibilities of the Church (both as an institution and also of her individual members), as the primary witnessing acts of the body of Christ, is the logical consequence of their ecclesial self-consciousness. It is exactly the same with regard to the doctrinal aspect of the ecclesial witness, i.e. with regard to expressing the faith, determining the truth, and authoritatively preserving it. All these functions within the life of the Church are related to the eucharistic identity of the Church.[26] And all these are in fact the responsibility of the eucharistic community as a whole. Vl. Pheidas has rightly pointed out that even synodality, the ultimate criterion of the truth, cannot be isolated from, but is mutually inter-related with, the Eucharist.[27] The Patriarchs of the East, were not far away from such an awareness, when they underlined that the ultimate authority of the Church lies neither on doctrinal magisteria, nor on any clerical (even conciliar) structure, but to the entire people of God.[28]The only limitation is that this “communal” magisterium, the “many” in the Church’s life, cannot function in isolation from the “one” who is imaging  Christ, i.e.  the presiding in love over the local (bishop), regional (protos or primate), or universal Church (Pope or Patriarch).[29]And this “one” is the only visible expression of the Church.

(b)  It is not only the “one-and-many” communal understanding of the Church’s magisterium, which is implied by the eucharistic theology; it is also the far-reaching consequences it has for the Church’s mission. Apart from the imperative for a common  evangelistic witness,[30] the eucharistic theology calls for a mission that goes far beyond denominational boundaries, beyond Christian limitations, even beyond the religious sphere in the conventional sense. For its primary purpose can be nothing else except the manifestation of the Kingdom of God, the restoration the “household” (oikos) of God, in its majestic eschatological splendour. This naturally means that any authentic ecclesial witness has to move away from a certain “christocentric universalism” and towards a “trinitarian” one. It has to be a witness that  abandons any effort of proselytism, not only among Christians of other denominations, but even among peoples of other religions. That is why terms like martyria/witness and dialogue should run parallel to the old missiological terminology (christianization etc.), with an intention to gradually replace them. This development, of course, by no means implies abandoning our fundamental Christian soteriology. It is rather a radical reinterpretation of Christology through Pneumatology, through the rediscovery of the forgotten trinitarian theology of the undivided Church, which as we stated earlier derives from the eucharistic theology.[31]       

(c) An ecclesial witness thus understood would imply that one can no longer speak of clergy and laity, nor of a hierarchical order (which in the secular conventional sense is a reflection of the fallen earthly order, not of the kenotic divine one), but of a diaconal one, of the traditional “iconic” understanding of all priestly ministries. And this clearly implies that women too, not only men, are integral part of the ecclesial witnessing responsibility, both in teaching the truth and in determining and preserving it. This is what better establishes a genuine community of men and women within the Church, than any secular initiatives demanding redistribution of power.[32] For there can be no such words as power and authority - except those of God the Father - in the Kingdom to come; and in the Church as the Kingdom’s proleptic manifestation there is only service/diaconia and ecclesial witness.

I submit these views for your consideration, not as the ultimate solution to the problem, but in order to be synthesized - as I indicated in my introduction - with the widely held among Catholics ecclesiological views, which underline a more centralized magisterium.

(delivered at the ecumenical Symposium in Bari, December 1999)