Fr. Florovsky's essay, "The Limits of Church," was mentioned in the comments to my earlier post, and discussion of it was encouraged. So I thought I would get the ball rolling. (You should read the essay, as my summary may inadvertently miss important points and/or misconstrue Florovsky's argument.)
Fr. Florovsky is delineating two different, though not contradictory or irreconcilable, approaches to the limits of the Church, the first, more clear and defined is St. Cyprian of Carthage, the second, less clear, perhaps, is St. Augustine of Hippo. From these, then, develop two perspectives regarding the canonicity of the sacraments of schismatics and heretics, and thus of the reality of the grace which may inhere in those sacraments. (These matters have fundamental importance on how the Church is to receive schismatics and heretics.)
The first perspective, which Fr. George derives from St. Cyprian, is that from within the Church and which takes the Church's objective boundaries (sacraments performed by bishops and clergy in valid apostolic succession, the canon of the Scriptures, the dogmas of the Church, etc.) as the recognized limits of the Church. The point, for the saint, is that the sacraments of the schismatics and heretics are graceless. Fr. George writes:
The whole meaning and the whole logical stress of his reasoning lay in the conviction that the sacraments are established in the Church. That is to say, they are effected and can be effected only in the Church, in communion and in communality. Therefore every violation of communality and unity in itself leads immediately beyond the last barrier into some decisive 'outside'. To St Cyprian every schism was a departure out of the Church, out of that sanctified and holy land where alone there rises the baptismal spring, the waters of salvation, quia una est aqua in ecclesia sancta (Epist. lxxi, 2).
It needs to be noted that for St. Cyprian, the locus of the dynamic energies of the sacraments was in the union (synodality, sobornost) of the Church. Schismatics and heretics violated that unity and love, and therefore their sacraments were invalid.
For St. Augustine, however, the perspective is not from the Church looking out but from the (purportedly) sacramental act looking into the Church. That is to say, insofar as the act itself is valid, it is valid despite the fact that it is done by schismatics and heretics. The saint also bases his thought on the unity of the Church, as does St. Cyprian, but the schismatics and heretics, though they violate the bond of peace (via their divisions), do not necessarily violate the bond of the Holy Spirit. So in their sacramental acts, He who validates the act is the Holy Spirit through Church herself, via the bond of the Spirit, if not via the bond of unity and peace.
The distinction, though it is not a deeper difference, is that between validity (canon) and the reality (sacrament). The externality of the act may itself be invalid, an act that takes place outside the objective limits of the Church, but the reality of it is made grace-full by the Church who extends her life-giving reality given her in the Spirit by acceptance of the sacramental act. And it is precisely because of this that the sacraments cannot be seen as "magical" per se. As Fr. Florovsky writes, how these schismatic and heretical sacraments operate outside the Church's objective boundaries are a mystery:
One thing remains obscure. How does the activity of the Spirit continue beyond the canonical borders of the Church? What is the validity of sacraments without communion, of stolen garments, sacraments in the hands of usurpers? Recent Roman theology answers that question by the doctrine of the validity of the sacraments ex opere operato. In St Augustine this distinction does not exist, but he understood the validity of sacraments performed outside canonical unity in the same sense. In fact ex opere operato points to the independence of the sacrament from the personal action of the minister. The Church performs the sacrament and, in her, Christ the high priest. The sacraments are performed by the prayer and activity of the Church, ex opere orantis et operantis ecclesiae. It is in this sense that the doctrine of validity ex opere operato, must be accepted. For Augustine it was not so important that the sacraments of the schismatics are 'unlawful' or 'illicit' (illicita); much more important is the fact that schism is a dissipation of love. But the love of God can overcome the failure of love in man. In the sects themselves - and even among the heretics - the Church continues to perform her saving and sanctifying work. It may not follow, perhaps, that we should say that schismatics are still in the Church. In any case this would not be precise and sounds equivocal. It would be truer to say that the Church continues to work in the schisms in expectation of that mysterious hour when the stubborn heart will be melted in the warmth of God's prevenient grace, when the will and thirst for communality and unity will finally burst into flame. The 'validity' of sacraments among schismatics is the mysterious guarantee of their return to Catholic plenitude and unity.
But one ought not take from this that Fr. George, nor Augustine, were arguing some sort of "Branch theory" of ecclesiology, that even though grace can operate among the schismatics and heretics, then it's all the same anyhow; one need not join oneself to the one Church, since one can "get by" in the schisms. Instead, Fr Florovsky concludes:
It is necessary to hold firmly in mind that in asserting the 'validity' of the sacraments and of the hierarchy itself in the sects, St Augustine in no way relaxed or removed the boundary dividing sect and communality. This is not so much a canonical as a spiritual boundary: communal love in the Church and separatism and alienation in the schism. For Augustine this was the boundary of salvation, since grace operates outside communality but does not save. (It is appropriate to note that here, too, Augustine closely follows Cyprian, who asserted that except in the Church even martyrdom for Christ does not avail.) For this reason, despite all the 'reality' and 'validity' of a schismatic hierarchy, it is impossible to speak in a strict sense of the retention of the 'apostolic succession' beyond the limits of canonical communality. . . .From this it follows without a doubt that the so-called 'branch' theory is unacceptable. This theory depicts the cleavages of the Christian world in too complacent and comfortable a manner. The onlooker may not be able immediately to discern the schismatic 'branches' from the Catholic trunk. In its essence, moreover, a schism is not just a branch. It is also the will for schism. It is the mysterious and even enigmatic sphere beyond the canonical limits of the Church, where the sacraments are still celebrated and where hearts often still burn in faith, in love and in works. We must admit this, but we must remember that the limit is real, that unity does not exist.
Although I was not familiar with this essay prior to my previous series of posts on the Tradition, it seems that my posts unconsciously followed in line with the general tenor of Fr. George's essay, though not, perhaps, in all its particulars.
Posted by Clifton at February 7, 2005 11:00 AM | TrackBackJust to repost my comments below since this thread is more directly related:
My first impressions of this article essay: First, I am a bit surprised by what appears to me to be a serious lack of consensus and theological grappling in the last few hundred years with this issue. The meat of what Florovsky says the Church says about this issue is from St. Cyprian and the Blessed Augustine. I expected more later development.
Second, It would appear to me that Augustine's theology can really only apply to "close" schism - to a Church that has split off over a single or restricted group of issues. Augustine assumes that the sacramental life of the schismed Church is in fact the same as the Orthodox Church. Fast forward 1500 years. What does the "sacramental life" of most protestant churches have to do with the Church's? Very little, as far as I can tell. The Episcopalian’s are now crypto Unitarians. To talk about the "validity" of Episcopalian sacraments is to stretch the meaning of sacraments beyond anything Augustine could have imagined, IMO.
Augustine theology seems to give us a way back from Schism - a way to heal a division when there has been a real repentance on the part of the schismed Church. I can see it applying to a real healing of the Great Schism between the Church and Rome.
It seems inadequate (IMO) to the protestant situation. I think that final statement by Met. Philaret, while of course a profound affirmation of Faith in the work of the Spirit (and for us to not be anxious), and a sign of just how silent modern Orthodoxy is on the limits of the Church...
Posted by: Christjopher at February 7, 2005 11:54 AM"Fr. Florovsky is delineating two different, though not contradictory or irreconcilable, approaches to the limits of the Church..."
I would totally agree. So why was this article linked as proof that there is an inherent contradiciton here rather than a paradox?
Cparks? :)
Posted by: Karl Thienes at February 7, 2005 12:36 PMSo why was this article linked as proof that there is an inherent contradiciton here rather than a paradox?
Because the two most common approaches in Orthodoxy are the "Greek," ie-baptize everyone because there is no grace outside the Church, and the "Russian," which explains reception in terms of "economy," rather than as Fr Florovsky explains it here. There is a difference between what Fr Florovsky argues for here and the common economic approach to ecclesiology.
Posted by: cparks at February 7, 2005 01:01 PM"Because the two most common approaches in Orthodoxy are the "Greek," ie-baptize everyone because there is no grace outside the Church, and the "Russian," which explains reception in terms of "economy," rather than as Fr Florovsky explains it here...."
Even granting the generalization, I think one can argue that those bishops that adovacate for "re-baptism" do not neccesarily say that "there is no grace outside the Church" nor do those bishops who advocate reception by Chrismation only claim anything close to the branch theory.
I think both approaches can co-exist, if we look at each catechuman on a case-by-case basis rather than claiming there must be only one uniform way of receiving converts from non-Orthodox yet Christian communions. "There is no grace outside the Church" and "we can't say where the Church isn't" are not mutually exclusive propositons. YMMV.
Posted by: Karl Thienes at February 7, 2005 01:31 PM"The Episcopalian’s are now crypto Unitarians. To talk about the "validity" of Episcopalian sacraments is to stretch the meaning of sacraments beyond anything Augustine could have imagined, IMO."
With all due respect that is grossly simplistic, and imo false. Actual Anglican teaching is clear on issues like the Holy Trinity, the Chalcedon formula, and so forth. The problem in the Anglican church is not what the actual teaching of the church is (female priests aside), but that heretics within the church are allowed to get away with false teaching and the misrepresentation of Anglican doctrine.
The church my wife and I attend has an orthodox understanding of the Trinity and of Christ, as well as the sacraments, and so I cannot see how it is a stretch to see us as schismatic but not heretical and without grace.
Posted by: Shawn at February 7, 2005 01:49 PMChristopher: It seems inadequate (IMO) to the protestant situation. I think that final statement by Met. Philaret, while of course a profound affirmation of Faith in the work of the Spirit (and for us to not be anxious), and a sign of just how silent modern Orthodoxy is on the limits of the Church...
I agree, and I think that's why Florovsky characterizes his essay as just a beginning.
Posted by: cparks at February 7, 2005 02:04 PMI understand that Fr Florovsky later moved away from openness to Augustinian ecclesiology. At least that is what says Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna says:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/florovsky.aspx
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/florov_thoughts.aspx
Posted by: Pontificator at February 7, 2005 02:44 PM
Shawn,
I can I see a sense that you might be right. To the extant that Episcopalian’s are now de facto congregationalists – each parish church being it’s own source of Doctrine and authority – then one would have to take it on a parish by parish basis. Even granting this, it is hard to argue that the Blessed Augustine’s theology pertains to this set of circumstances. Yes, recognizing true Doctrine in regards to the Holy Trinity is important, but throwing out (or simply ignoring it) the whole Ecclesiastical Doctrine of the Church? This is no longer a simple schism based on a single or small set of issues. To put it another way, the common ground between the “sects” and the Church that the Blessed Augustine was trying to reconcile was quantitatively and qualitatively closer that even the “best case” Episcopalian parish that you describe. This of course puts to one side as to whether Episcopalians can actually be what I am calling “de facto congregationalists”. On a personal note, being a formal Episcopalian myself, It is my sincere hope and honest prayer God continues his saving work among orthodox Episcopalian’s such as yourself.
Karl,
What practical theological principles (are there really any other kind? ;) do you propose, or rather see in the Tradition, as a starting point for this "case-by-case basis"? Lurking behind my question is that suspicion that what you are really proposing is a commitment to pastoral "economy" where the Church really has no doctrine except to say that it is up to the individual will of each pastor.
"To the extant that Episcopalian’s are now de facto congregationalists – each parish church being it’s own source of Doctrine and authority – then one would have to take it on a parish by parish basis."
I dont think this is true either. In fact, like the first comment I responded to its a cartoon caricature of the state of affairs in the AC. The official teaching of the Anglican church is clear on issues like the Trinity and the nature of Christ. And it should be on that teaching alone that the Anglican communion is judged. That some parishes choose not to adhere to that teaching is one thing, (this would also be true of the Roman church remeber, so what the difference?) but to claim that we are in a position where every church is simply making it up for themselves is totally false. The vast majority of Anglican churches, especially but not exclusively those in the third world, adhere to Anglican doctrine. Orthodox Anglicans are not a minority, we are the majority. Judging the situation by the US alone does not do the Communion justice.
A citation from one of the links Fr. Kimmel references above:
Protopresybter Georges Florovsky:
Third, this new book [i.e., a bioagraphy of Fr. George, Georges Florovsky, SVS 1993, ed. Andrew Blane] very fairly sets forth Father Georges' ecclesiology: that the Orthodox Church is the true Church established by Christ and the Apostles and that the heterodox Churches are not "equal to it" or possessed of its Grace. But it fails to show the extent to which, in his later years, Florovsky was in some sense "anti-ecumenical." Not given to humble admissions of error, he nonetheless once told me that he felt that the ecumenical movement had deviated from its original purposes and that he was perhaps wrong to have been one of its most famous proponents. He was not, as some claim, an advocate of joint communion; did not recognize the validity of non-Orthodox sacramen