Saying Non-Chalced. are Orthodox does not = branch theory

[Anastasios]

NOTE: THIS IS A FIRST DRAFT. I AM WILLING TO RETHINK ANY POSITION BASED ON YOUR REACTION TO THIS ESSAY.

A user asked me to be expedient in explaining my thesis that one can believe the Non-Chalcedonians to be Orthodox and have grace without admitting the branch theory. In this essay, I do not seek to prove the Orthodoxy of the Non-Chalcedonians as I am not qualified at this time to offer such an assessment. Instead, I will focus on the issue of, “if at some point the Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church in council decides that that Non-Chalcedonian terminology is Orthodox, can we admit that they have been so all along without delving into the Branch theory?”

To avoid previous misunderstandings in terminology, I will begin by defining the terms as I use them. If any of you think I am mistaken in my definition, then please offer your suggested corrections.

The Branch theory is the belief that the Anglican, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Churches together constitute the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. Each one of these Churches is a branch of this Catholic Church. All three are sacramental and have maintained apostolic succession, and the beliefs that separate them are not enough to render their Eucharist graceless as with the Protestants (of course Anglicans are Protestants but in this theory they do not see themselves as such). Implicit in this belief is the idea of the “invisible church”, in other words, that the Church of Christ in its spiritual form is either 1) wherever true believers are found or 2) where one of the “branches” of the visible Church are, depending on the extreme to which one takes this thought.

The Orthodox Church, together with St. Cyprian of Carthage, takes the view that the invisible Church and the visible Church coincide—in other words the Body of Christ is the Orthodox Church. This belief is central to the Orthodox faith.

Throughout history there have nevertheless been countless schisms. St. Basil divided the divisions into three ways: heretics, or those who used Christian vocabulary but had an entirely different cosmic and ontological understanding of what the terminology meant (he used the Gnostics as an example); schismatics, or those who maintained the appearance and function of the Church but who denied a major tenet of the faith such as the Divinity of Christ (he cited the Arians) and then finally “the unlawful assembly” or those who rejected the bishop’s authority and set up a separate episcopate.

St. Basil also admitted the different degrees into the Church in different ways: baptism for the Gnostics, chrismation for the Arians (since they continued to baptize in the formula “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” and with triple immersion), and repentance for unlawful assemblymen. Pope Stephen had argued with St. Cyprian a century earlier as to whether baptisms outside the Church were valid, with Pope Stephen saying yes and St. Cyprian saying no. In the end of the disputes, however, St. Cyprian finally agrees that each bishop must decide for his flock and will ultimately be responsible to God for his actions, so let the customs of each Church continue.

In today’s modern Orthodox Church the terms are slightly different: the Gnostics would be considered apostates, the Arians heretics, the “Macedonian Orthodox Church” schismatic, and a local Orthodox parish rejecting its bishop’s authority an “unlawful assembly”. The terminology is not what is important, however; what we can gleam from these divisions of St. Basil’s is the idea that there are differentiated degrees of separation from the Orthodox Church.

Now we must address the issue of Apostolic succession. Apostolic succession is the belief that the apostles passed on both the faith and the laying on of hands to their successors, which constituted in the Eucharist the Church of Christ on Earth throughout the ages. After the Donatist schism, (St.) Augustine was torn over what to do with ordinations done outside the Orthodox Catholic Church, much as St. Cyprian had been with baptisms. Augustine in attempting to answer this controversy ended up altering the perception of ordination, however, in ways that 1000 years later would have a curious impact on ecclesiology.

In the Fathers and the modern Orthodox Church, apostolic succession is mainly a guarantee of the true faith being passed on. It is passed on IN the Body of Christ, however—it is not something that can be done outside of it. The right faith, the right laying on of hands in the context of a Eucharist, and the ordination occurring FOR a local Church are all prerequisites for ordination to be “valid”. Augustine, however, turned the focus onto the ordaining bishop and the ordinand, and asked the questions: “was the right liturgical formula followed?” and “did the participants wish to do the will of the Church?” If both conditions were satisfied, then the oridination was effective—without reference to the assembly. The ordination was UNCANONICAL but uncanonical did not automatically mean INVALID, and such a schismatic bishop or priest could be received as is on the basis of this ordination. The curious result of this theology is the issue of so-called vagante bishops who are bishops ordained without flocks. According to modern Roman Catholic ecclesiology, these bishops are in fact real bishops (to a certain degree; if the faith is tampered with the RC usually rules the ordinations to be invalid).

Moving to another aspect of the discussion, we must address the current state of the Old Calendar movement in Orthodoxy. Since this essay is being written for a primarily Old Calendarist audience I will refrain from going into a deep discussion of the movement. For those unaware, between 1922-1968, in many Orthodox Churches the Calendar of feasts was changed from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar. The change of calendar had been condemned on three previous instances. Still, a change in the calendar might have been conceivable if the entire Orthodox Church had approved it in council, but the reality was that it was changed by a questionable Churchman who was a sycretist. Therefore, the change was rejected by many. From that split arose the Old Calendar movement, Orthodox loyal the Old Calendar. After some time they disagreed on whether the State Church which was New Calendarist had grace. Today, there are two “basic” varieties of Old Calendarists: those who accept grace in the New Calendarist Churches, saying they are in error but that their error has not made them not-Orthodox, and those who say that the New Calendarists are schismatics and/or heretics and thus graceless.

What makes this germaine to our discussion of Non-Chalcedonians is that most New Calendarists accept the Old Calendarists—even those not in communion with them—as Orthodox, and some of the Old Calendarists view New Calendarists as Orthodox—even though they are not in communion with one another. Now the Orthodox Church has taught what Met. John Zizioulas calls “communion ecclesiology”: where the bishop is, there is the Church; where the Church is, there is the Eucharist. The Church, Christ, and the Eucharist are all one reality. Since Christ cannot be divided, then theoretically if one leaves the communion of the Orthodox Church, he is no longer Orthodox and his mysteries (sacraments) are nothing.

Yet what do we say when we have two groups who are separated but both claiming to be Orthodox, and even in some cases both recognizing each other to be Orthodox, while not being in union with each other? How can both be the Church? Yet they are both treated as such. Even some of the grace-denying Old Calendarists, while not accepting New Calendarists, will accept OTHER Old Calendarists as Orthodox even if they are not in union, expressing hope that there will be a union soon. The reality that is lived is that if one follows the Orthodox FAITH and has apostolic succession, he is Orthodox—yet that begins to sound Augustinian. Therefore, I would say that in modern Orthodox thought there is a tension between Eucharistic ecclesiology and apostolic-faith-and-succession theology (which I oppose to Augustianism in the need for the FAITH to be continued in a community). Only by admitting a tension can one accept the fact that there are divisions in the Orthodox Church which is not divided! As another example I posit the ROCOR. ROCOR is in union with the Serbian patriarchate via full communion and concelebration, and is in a de facto communion with the Jerusalem patriarchate (accounts vary at this time as to priestly and episcopal concelebration—the sign of full communion—so I will leave the status as a question). ROCOR is not, however, in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate or the Ecumenical Patriarchate, however, which raises the question: “how can one be in communion with one Orthodox Church and not the others?” Furthermore, the idea that ROCOR is in an “imperfect communion” with the Jerusalem Patriarchate admits of a level of divide in the Orthodox Church.

After all of this background information, I believe I can finally state my case for at least the POSSIBILITY of considering the Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox. At the time of Chalcedon, certain bishops were present who were excommunicated by the Council. Some theologian-archimandrites were also excommunicated, such as Eutyches. This led to a division in the episcopate of some Churches where the original patriarch was incumbent and an new imperial-backed patriarch loyal to Chalcedon was in place. At this time, it was impossible to say that the Non-Chalcedonians were in schism since a mere two years earlier, another imperial council with the eastern patriarchs present (the “Robber Synod” of Ephesus, 449) had issued a completely opposite decree. Since in Orthodoxy a council must be “received” by the whole Church (sometimes by ratification by a subsequent council, or by addition of the council into the festal calendar), at this time it was too uncertain as to the outcome for the status of Non-Chalcedonians to be sure. This would continue until the death of Acacius, who had presided over a Church that had broken communion with Rome (I am not arguing Roman primacy here) in order to enter communion with the Non-Chalcedonians via the document known as the Henotikon. At his death, Emperor Justin issued a reaffirmation of Chalcedon and severed communion with the Non-Chalcedonians in order to enter communion with Rome. At this time, one can make the argument that the Non-Chalcedonians are schismatic for not accepting the clear decree of the emperor and the Church.

Yet their Church rejected the idea that the emperor could issue such a decree, and they saw themselves as “THE CHURCH”; they also had the Council of Ephesus 449, dubbed “Robber Synod” by the Chalcedonians yet approved by the Emperor prior and to them an ecumenical council, and they passed on the Apostolic faith in their dioceses to their flock. How could one then decide where the Church was in such a situation, where at times there were parallel hierarchies and at times there was one hierarchy with each priest making up his mind and hoping for a bishop that agreed with him next time around? There was also the issue of canonicity; the Council of Chalcedon deposed Dioscorus en absentia for disobedience (not for monophysitism) and then the emperor replaced him with another patriarch not approved by the Synod of the Church of Alexandria. The answers to these questions may seem crystal-clear at this time, but what about at that time when they transpired?

Indeed, can one pinpoint a time when Chalcedon was “received” by the Church (not just the emperor) and afterwhich rejection of the Council made one a heretic? I do not doubt that at some time Chalcedon was received for I believe it to be an ecumenical Council, infallible, and speaking God’s truth. But it condemns propositions that even the Non-Chalcedonians condemned, such as the Eutychian heresy. The Non-Chalcedonians have always continued to use St. Cyril’s terminology; therefore I believe that there is a case for exploring the question of whether Non-Chalcedonian Christology as it is expressed at this time is Orthodox.

The crux of my argument thus becomes: if the Orthodox Church can admit that there are Orthodox who are not in communion with each other but who are still Orthodox, such as the New Calendarist vs. Old Calendarist schism, or the Bulgarian situation with two patriarchs, or the Kievan Patriarchate debacle, then it Non-Chaledonians COULD be admitted to be Orthodox IF it is decided BY THE ENTIRE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN COUNCIL that their terminology is Orthodox. If they passed on the Orthodox Faith, then they can be called Orthodox, even if they have not been in communion with the Chalcedonian Orthodox for 1500 years.

The Branch theory states that different groups with different beliefs can be the One Church which is divided. Calling the Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox on the assumption (which still needs to be proved in Church Council for it to be official) that their faith is Orthodox does not constitute this Branch theory. Instead, it states that the Church is present where the Orthodox faith is present and where the apostolic faith has been passed down via a community and the laying-on of hands.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

I'm glad you posted this and have read most of it. I'll finish reading it tonight since I just don't have the time today; but I think this covers much ground and I would hope we can break the subjects down into several categories (ie. Apostolic Succession, definition of the "Branch Theory", ect.) - and talk about this for awhile.

[Jakub]

A good example of communication skills.

james

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Anastasios,

First, I would just like to say that I think it is wonderful that you have taken the time to study this. You are very unusual in the world.

It may come as a shock, but I don’t disagree with your underlying argument, I can think of many more examples where people and groups were seemingly separated or in “schism”, but in fact, as the Church in a fair amount of time showed, were not. And I can think of many cases where the “official” Church constituted a system of fallen men with the look and smell of Orthodox Christians, and the Genuine Orthodox were beaten back into small scattered groups. St. Athanasios said, “they may have the churches, but we have the faith”, therefore, we have everything.

But as you might have guessed, I don’t agree with some of the positions and arguments you use relative to the Monophysites, who have indeed been cut-off.

As you described, the “Branch Theory” says there are other “Christian” churches that also constitute, the ONE Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Since I have no need for the Anglican definition of this term as only the Orthodox use is meaningful to me, I will say with certainty that the “Branch Theory” is in no way limited to Latins and Anglicans. I consider any thought which says those “churches” who are not Orthodox in faith have the sacred Mysteries of the Church to be the “Branch Theory” – which is a heresy in-and-of itself.

You quickly glossed over (pardon the expression) the debates between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen regarding baptisms outside the Church and made it seem like it was a draw. A draw indeed. St. Cyprians formulas were approved and adopted by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod(!) which explains: "For if the Catholic Church be one and the true Baptism be one, how can that of the heretics and schismatics be a true Baptism at a time when they are not in the Catholic Church but have been cut off from it by heresy? But if the baptism of heretics and schismatics be true and the Baptism of the Orthodox Catholic Church also be true, then there is not one Baptism as Paul proclaims, but two, which is most absurd."

I would also hasten to add, that it is enough that anyone admits that a person is Chrismated to admit that they are without Baptism. To whom does the Church give the Chrism? Does she not give it to those who lack the Holy Spirit? Is not the Chrism "The Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit"? Therefore, would she have ever chrismated them if she did not consider them as lacking the Holy Spirit, that is, as alien to the Church?

St. Basil believed that all schismatics (with one exception which I will mention) and heretics were Graceless and were unbaptized. His formula for receiving heretics and schismatics was entirely based on whether the form of their baptism was an Orthodox form – this is why Eunomians were baptized and Arians were not – although they were both Christological heretics, and certain schismatics were baptized and others were not. It was all based on their dead and meaningless form.

But he does accept the ORDINATION of some schismatics as he explains: "Nevertheless, it seemed best to the ancient authorities --those, I mean, who form the party of Cyprian and our own Firmilian --to class them all under one head, including Cathari and Encratites and Aquarians and Apotactites; because the beginning, true enough, of the separation resulted through a schism; however, those who receded from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit upon them, for the importation thereof ceased when the continuity was interrupted. For although the ones who were the first to depart had been ordained by the Fathers and with the imposition of their hands they had obtained the gift of the Spirit, yet after breaking away they became common men and had no authority either to baptize or to ordain, nor could they impart the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, alter they themselves had forfeited it. Wherefore they bade that those baptized by them should be regarded as being baptized by common men, and that when they came to join the Church, they should have to be repurified by the true Baptism of the Church" (1st Canon of St. Basil).

Apostolic Succession: I am not inclined to get into the specifics with regard to Saint Augustine – I have an entire essay just to talk about him and the Donatists. In speaking of Apostolic succession it is not sufficient that we prove a continuous and unbroken chain of ordinations which reaches to the Apostles. The Church of Christ does not hang from the letter of the law. If those who ordained did not have the right Faith, their ordination is meaningless, and we can speak neither of Apostolic succession nor of priesthood. The laying of hands upon the ordained by a true bishop transmits the grace of the All-holy Spirit. Does the Holy Spirit, however, abide where falsehood is? Where heresy is?

Here is what St. Basil says: "I will never number with the true priests of Christ him who was ordained and received the oversight of a flock from the profane hands of heretics, unto the overthrow of the Orthodox Faith."
The 68th Canon of the Holy Apostles slates: "If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon accepts a second ordination from anyone, let both him and the one who ordained him be deposed; unless, indeed, it be established that he had his ordination from heretics. For those who have been baptized or ordained by such persons cannot possibly be either of the faithful or of the clergy." Only if one has been ordained by heretics does the canon permit a “second” ordination, for the ordination of heretics is, in reality, as if it had never happened – it is absolutely meaningless.

So there we have it, heretics and schismatics are Graceless. Now in those cases where you say this group is not in communion with that group but yet recognize Grace – this is called being “walled-off”, it has happened throughout the history of the Church for canonical reasons, and reasons of guidance and order. But this has always been recognized and something unique.

The easy ways are always the way people wish to do and think. And it might be very tempting to just try to mix all of the situations throughout the history of the Church, purposefully confuse or give little or no attempt to understand, the reasons and realities of the divisions in the history of the Church. But like I have told Justin, the infallible criteria is the Truth. The Church is where the Truth is.

So yes, I would agree, if it can be found that a group has the truth and has maintained the Truth, which includes Holy Tradition, and have not despised the cross by setting up competing synods because of personal issues, then they are the Church. So, despite the difference in opinion we have leading up to such a statement, we can both nevertheless agree at least on this.

But no sooner than we have finally come to agreement, we are once again departing…

The Monophysites hardly fall into the category of a being a long recognized Orthodox body “walled off”, in fact, quite the opposite. They have been determined to be heretics by the entire consciousness of the Church from every age spanning 1500+ years! They have been declared such by all of the Ecumenical Synods since the Fourth and there have been countless Saints who have written long treatises against them. It is not as though the Church simply forgot about them after the 5th century, there has always been an alomost constant engagment with them, and many attempts to bring them back.

The point is, if you believe in the Church, you cannot believe she errors. Sure you can cite examples of individuals or groups in error, but never the consciousness of the Church because Christ is the Head. In fact, Truth is God Himself who appeared concretely in the Person of Jesus and said: “I am the truth”. Against Christ’s absolute claim stands ecumenism, the heresy of our age. It says Christ is “a truth” but not “the truth”. Ecumenism represents a worldly mentality and originates in the hearts that are devoid of the living experience of Christ’s truth. But ecumenism is only one, albeit the most visible of many symptoms of a deep spiritual infection. The infection is rationalism, which is the root of all heresies.

No council will ever overturn the Fourth, any council doing so will be a robber council, and an assault on the Church.

Funny how we are even discussing this, as the ink dries on all of the documents signed by the ecumenist heretics with the Monophysites, and as they have all already agreed in the overturning of the Churches authority and have already lifted the anathemas, and now that they are all communing with each other en masse, I have still yet to see one tangible confession that the Monophysites are something other than Monophysites. So what is the point of this discussion? We still only see that they are heretics, and that therefore those who are communing with them are “branch theorists” who only forward blatant and sorrowful attempts to whitewash the whole issue.

IN ADDITION, as if this was not long enough, even if you were to show the Monophysites are not Monophysites, then you will also have to show that they were never at no time Monophysites, which would be the same as calling the Holy Fathers ignorant and blind men; and which would put everything we have ever known in doubt, in which case I would sooner be an aetheist.

In short, you either believe the Church, which has been guided by the Holy Spirit in "all truth", or you believe in the "Branch Theory".

[Arsenios]

Anastasios?

[Anastasios]

Gee wiz I am working full time, just helped organize the OCnet gettogether, made several weekend trips, and am spending time with my wife! I don't spend 24/7 online! Sorry I am not replying at this time. I didn't forget.

anastasios

[mwoerl]

let me see-if "oriental orthodox" are really orthodox, we are not delving into the branch theory? because the branch theory is that the catholics, the orthodox, and the anglicans are the -uh- branches on the tree of the Church?and that tose branches have "different beliefs"? Not quite...the branch theory was founded on the cornerstone that the beliefs were the same, but the practices different, that is why you could call the different churches "branches," and that was why the Anglicans, who developed this theory, thought they could get the other branches to buy into it.
Here is a concrete historical example, which will serve to illustrate that, according to the "branch theory" practitioners, there were your BIG branches, and there were your small branches.
The Anglicans (as well as the Russian Orthodox, and various Protestant groups) had a mission in the Urmia region of Persia (Iran) in the mid to late 1800's. The Urmia region was home the Nestorians (now called the Assyrian Church-"Nestorians," like "Monophysites," are now dirty words and cannot be used in a politically correct way...go tell it on the (Holy) Mountain....) The Mission in Urmia of the Anglicans was not there to "convert" the Nestorians to Anglicanism-I mean who ever heard of the Book of Common Prayer in Assyrian, anyway? But seriously, those who started and supported this mission were also supporters of the branch theory, and wished to investigate the current Nestorian doctrines and practices, advise them of what was indeed "heretical," persuade them to dump what was heretical, keep the rest, enter into communion with the Anglicans, and become a glorious example and proof of the branch theory. (This is all documented very nicely in a quite interesting book, "The Church of the East [another designation for the Nestorians] and the Church of England: A History of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission" by J.F. Coakley, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992) After establishing such a glowing success for the branch theory, if it could be done, the Anglicans hoped this success would persuade the other "branches" of the "Tree"-the Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Monophysites-to adopt the branch theory and all get together and be one big happy Tree! Possibly, if your vision of an announcement that the Monophysites were "never heretics" would ever come to pass, it might be possible to say "oh, accepting the Oriental Orthodox does not involve the branch theory"-but, unfortunately, you have to make null and void an ecumenical council to do that. I dont think there is much support for the theory that there was NEVER a monophysite heresy among the Syrian Jacobites, the Indian Jacobites, the Copts, and the Armenians. Maybe among the more extreme supporters of such a union-the big deal now is that in practice, the Oriental Orthodox do not hold to a Christology different than the Orthodox TODAY. This, of course, is not accepted in any of the traditionalist Orthodox Churches, or on the Holy Mountain. And indeed, it is not totally accepted in any Orthodox Church. Such a "union" would also be extremely complicated by the fact that the Oriental Orthodox are avidly ecumenical, much much much worse than anything we have even dreamed of in the Orthodox Church, and have made
several agreements with Rome that include people of mixed marriages being able to attend and commune in each others churches....and I do not feel that the Oriental Orthodox would be willing to dump those agreements to jump into Orthodoxy...they are persecuted to varying extents almost everywhere on their home ground, except Armenia...the Pope has more power and a much larger voice in the world than Bartholomew of Constantinople, and as far as the other Orthodox Patriarchs-in that context-who has even heard of them, or can name even one? Or cares? I think the Oriental Orthodox are well aware of that fact. Your "IF" in this situation is a very big "IF," indeed. You might as well write about what could happen "IF" all the Orthodox in America united and how swell it would be-it simply will not happen, so what is the point? Also, we whine about "parallel" hierarchs, diocese, and parishes NOW-if the Oriental Orthodox "unite" with the Orthodox, do you think for one minute we wont have parallel Patriarchates? How confusing will that be? Because there is a Coptic and Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria; a Jacobite and Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch; and an Armenian and Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople AND Jerusalem. Which one will step down, do you think? Or maybe they will revolve every year? Certainly Bartholomew or the EP will not give up their position. But if I am the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, why should I give up mine? After all, I consider MY branch to be older than YOUR branch. Not a very happy tree. Also, I think there are enough people in the "Official Orthodox Churches," or "World Orthodoxy," or whatever you want to call it that would not be amused if this union took place. In the longrun, will the EP and the MP risk driving a lot of their people into various traditionalist Churches? Don't they face enough problems in that area already? I would go as far as to say that this would provoke a reaction in Russia like you have never seen before, and one you would not want to see. I think there is a distinct possibility of violence over this issue in Russia. So far all we have is a lot of talk; we will probably have a lot more talk, and for a long time. And, a question, if I might-why go to the bother to "prove" that union with the Oriental Orthodox will not involve the "branch theory"? If for some mysterious reason, you feel that traditionalist Churches will swallow this thing if some pronouncement comes out that "we think they were always Orthodox, therefore the branch theory is not involved here," I
think you are sadly mistaken. And another question-how do you propose to make the Council of Chalcedon null and void? Or will this be one of those things where they say, "Oh we aren't making it null and void, we simply aren't paying attention to it anymore, but we hold its memory in honor..." or WHAT? I would like it very much if you could do a little reearch, and read something I am going to recommend. No, its not by some bishop of some old calendar or walled off or "schismatic" or in resistance Church-read the Life of Saint Euphemia, paying special attention to the miracle that occurred when the doctrines of the Orthodox and Monophysites (thats what they were called at the time, ok?) were placed in the hands of her incorrupt relics...see if that doesn't give you a new perspective on this issue. And perhaps you could answer another question for me-why are these people hoping to unite with the Oriental Orthodox when the separation of the Old Calendarists is something they keep proclaiming is so painful to them? Why are the Oriental Orthodox and the Papists "brothers in Christ," "sister churches," "the other lung of the Church (hhmmm-lung? branch?)", and the Old Calendarists are "schismatics"? Don't you feel at least a little attention should be paid, and a little energy expended, into "putting their own house in order" first?
michael woerl