Astra Salvensis, an VI, numãr 11, 2018 TRANS-ECCLESIAL EUCHARIST? AN EXPLORATION OF SOME CRITIQUES OF EUCHARISTIC ECCLESIOLOGY AND THE OUTLINING OF POTENTIA NEW PATHS Theodor Avramov ,,Saint Kliment Ohridski”, Sofia University, Bulgaria Abstract: Eucharistic ecclesiology has emerged during the 20th century as the ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Its roots can be traced back to the generation of Russian émigré theologians, but its current state has been mainly influenced by the work of Metropolitan John of Pergamon (Zizioulas). During the more than fifty years that have passed since his initial formulation of the idea, it has also managed to accumulate quite a number of supporters, as well as critics. In this text, I will not try only to systematize some of the critiques, but also to suggest that the key is not understanding the Church, but the Eucharist, while trying to avoid the objectification that the Sacrament of Sacraments has been subjected to. I do this while using the ecumenical work on ecclesiology and its reception by the Orthodox as a guideline. Keywords: Eucharistic ecclesiology, Zizioulas, monosacramentality, personhood, limits of the church. In the period of the Ecumenical Councils (4th-8th centuries) the main controversies concerned the nature of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Trinity in general. Later in the period of perpetual fragmentation of Christians, almost the first half of the second millennium, the biggest problems revolved around the practical aspects of life in the churches and its influence on theology. One among the problems concerning the two big separations in the 11th and 16th centuries was the issue of the authority of the primates of the churches, both of Rome‟s pope and Constantinople‟s patriarch. This remains an issue until this day. During the 20th century, with the growth of the Ecumenical Movement, the desire for Christians to unite raised a fundamental question, that was not addressed systematically in the last two thousand years. How can Christians unite? Naturally, the answer must give both a practical and a theological justification. The crossroad between those two is ecclesiology. The emergence of ecclesiology as a separate field of theological inquiry is heavily influenced by ecumenical engagement: dialogues, and even more often opposition. For the Roman Catholic Church and the 385 Astra Salvensis, an VI, numãr 11, 2018 Eastern Orthodox Church Eucharistic ecclesiology became, and to some extent still is, preferred.1 First expounded by Nicolas Afanasiev 2 it grew to be widely accepted, after its refinement from some of the most influential theologians of the 20th century.3 It concretized the celebration of the Eucharist as the constitutive motion of a church. Developing alongside a liturgical renewal in almost all historic churches brought about a re- discovery of the identity of the churches and their members. Within the ecumenical engagement, out of which this has emerged, it has also led to a border between the churches which hold the Eucharist as central and constituting, and those who do not.4 In an age where more walls are being built than demolished the goal of this paper is to take a fresh look at the Church as constituted in the Eucharist, with an emphasis on the Eastern Orthodox view, especially the work of Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon (b. 1931) and the Orthodox response to the latest ecclesiological engagement of the WCC‟s Commission on Faith and Order, at the same time also addressing new critiques of Zizioulas‟ theology and finally taking a new look at the Eucharist and its implications for ecclesiology which could open new paths for encounter beyond, but leading towards the Table. Faith and Order’s Ecclesiological engagement The question of ecclesiology lies at the core of the ecumenical movement since its beginning, although not explicitly. At the first World Conference on Faith and Order in Lausanne (1927) the concept 1 For the Roman Catholic Church see: Joseph Ratzinger, ,,The Ecclesiology of Vatican II”, in L‟Osservatore Romano, 23/01/2002, p. 5. While for the Eastern Orthodox see: Georges Florovsky, ,,Eucharist and Catholicity”, in Collected Works, volume XIII, Ecumenism I, Doctrinal Approach, Church and Catholicity, Belmont, Nordland Pub. Co., 1979, pp. 46-57. 2 Nicholas Afanasiev, The Church of the Holy Spirit, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 2007 (orig. Nicholas Afanasiev, Tserkov Dukha Sviatogo Paris, YMCA Press, 1971). 3 Although every one of these theologians, whose names will be mentioned below, takes another approach and emphasizes different things, for all the Eucharist stands in the center. 4 Thomas FitzGerald E., The Ecumenical Movement: An Introductory History, Westport, Praeger Publishers, 2004, p. 159. 386 Astra Salvensis, an VI, numãr 11, 2018 of the Church as ,,living organism”5 was elaborated. This reflection was deepened, and ecclesiology began to be re-viewed and projected through different lenses6 like Christology,7 Trinity,8 sacrament,9 conciliar fellowship,10 koinonia.11 The koinonia concept seems to be the preferred one.12 All this work led to the eventual publication of the convergence document ,,The Church. Towards a Common Vision”.13 The road to the ,,The Church”: As a convergence text The Church follows in the tradition of Baptism, Eucharist, Ministry, 14 which was a document that emerged from the work of the Commission on Faith and Order aimed at finding convergence on crucial issues, previously viewed as dividing. BEM had as its goal not only to elaborate the points where there is convergence but also to initiate a conversation. It was sent to all member church of the WCC at that time, as well as to the Roman Catholic Church. Their responses and critiques later were crucial for The Church document. After the discussions on baptism, Eucharist and ministry, the need for more research into ecclesiology surfaced15 and were undertaken by the Faith and Order Commission. The Church is ,,the [latest] common statement” 16 and the second convergence document after BEM. I will not compile a résumé of the 5 H. N. Bate (editor), Faith and Order: Proceedings of the World Conference, Lausanne, August 3-21, London, Student Christian Movement, 1927, p. 133. 6 While some were not explicitly elaborated as ecclesiological they do pertain to the envisioned and awaited unity of the Church. 7 H. N. Bate (editor), Faith and Order, p. 463. 8 Ibidem. 9 Minutes of the Faith and Order Commission and Working Committee, St Andrews, Scotland, 1960 (Faith and Order Paper No. 31), p. 25. 10 ,,Concepts of Unity and Models of Union”, in The Ecumenical Review, volume 26, 1974, p. 37. 11 The Unity of the Church: Gift and Calling-the Canberra Statement, 20 February 1991. WWC, Commission on Faith and Order, www.oikoumene.org/en, accessed in 05.12.2017. 12 Silke-Petra Bergjan, ,,Ecclesiology in Faith and Order Texts”, in The Ecumenical Review, volume 46, 1994, p. 58. 13 The Church: Towards a Common Vision (Faith and Order Paper No. 214), Geneva, WCC 2013 (hereafter referenced to as The Church). 14 Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry, Geneva, WCC, 1982 (hereafter referred to as B. E. M.). 15 Witnessed to by the Orthodox who advised that the Commission on F&O should ,,concentrate on ecclesiology” (,,Inter-Orthodox Report on BEM”, in Greek Orthodox Theological Review, no. 30/2, 1985, p. 264, quoted in Emmanuel Clapsis, ,,BEM-20 Years Later: An Orthodox Contribution”, in Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift: neue Folge der Revue Internationale de Théologie, 2002, pp. 225-234 (www.e-periodica.ch, accessed in 14.12.2017). 16 The Church, p. 46. 387 Astra Salvensis, an VI, numãr 11, 2018 text here due to volume limitations but being the ecclesiological statement of the F&O Commission, it is necessary that the problematic areas for the Orthodox be identified. Reception and critique: the Orthodox After the publication and submission to the churches, the same process of reception as with BEM was encouraged. The Orthodox response came three years later in an inter-Orthodox consultation in Paralimni, Cyprus.17 While welcoming The Church and its emphasis on a mission as ,,a joyful privilege” (§6)18 the Consultation emphasizes that the recognition between churches (TCTCV§9&10) ,,cannot be solved by avoiding it and assuming that churches already do recognize one another as a church[§11]”. The main problem of recognition between the churches immediately becomes clear and its solution lies only at the end of the ecumenical journey. The Church is a step towards that end, but the Consultation highlighted that there are irreconcilable positions between the text and the Orthodox understanding. To make a further step will necessitate outlining the problematic areas before moving on to an effort of reconciling them. I will not focus on all the critiques of the Consultation but only on the three, that is concretely linked to the eucharistic ecclesiology of Zizioulas. Limits of the Church: The first issue that emerges for the Orthodox is the question of the limits of the Church. Referring to the holiness of the Church in TCTCV§35 the Consultation affirms that the Church is holy but also that ,,distortions in faith and order led to separation” (§25) which immediately raises the question of the ,,limits of the Church” and present it as a still ,,unsettled question” (§26), while referring to the threefold division of heresies, schisms and, unlawful congregations19 as ,,canonical norms that have been in place since the late fourth century” (§26). Episkopé/Primacy: In the Consultation‟s response the questions of épiskopé and primacy remains only marginal, receiving only two, short consecutive paragraphs (§32&34). The first one asserts that ,,there is no episkopé without the bishop” while the second simply states that the 17 ,,World Council of Churches Inter-Orthodox Consultation for a Response to the Faith and Order Text the Church: Towards a Common Vision, Paralimni, Cyprus, 6-13 October 2016”, in Review of Ecumenical Studies Sibiu, volume 8, Warsaw, De Gryuter Open, 2016, pp.