Please consider supporting my efforts via Donor Box here: donorbox.org/sapientia-nulliformis-blog-support To read my blog, click here: declubac.wixsite.com/sapientianulliformis
As an Eastern Catholic, I believe Zizoulas's answer to your concern regarding his eucharistic ecclesiology rendering the parish the local church would be to state that the local parish does not exist apart from the bishop. It is similar to the view that a confession is only valid when the bishop of the jurisdiction has given the power to hear confessions to a priest, which is something you mention in another video. As evidence, one might bring up the liturgical practice of early Rome to have what we would refer to as today as the liturgy of the word, or of the Catechumens, in various places within the city. The faithful would then receive the eucharist from the bishops' liturgy, carried to them by the presbyters. This later developed, as I understand it, to entire liturgies separate from the bishops, but in which a particle of the eucharist from the bishop's liturgy would be mixed with the newly consecrated eucharist. This idea has some interesting consequences, and I don't know if it has ever really been explored, but there is definitely this idea of one liturgy, that of the bishop, in eastern liturgical thought. I think that your question would not be a problem for Zizoulas because of this. Also, I am so glad I found your channel. It brings me such joy to hear someone give an honest explanation of theology. And it is getting me through a few slow days at work. I can't thank you enough.
Are you able to do a video on the differences between scotus, aquinas, bonaventure & palamas and your thoughts on the pros/cons of their views on divine simplicity?
Hi Dr DeClue. You mentioned your association with Fr Francis Sullivan recently - his work 'from apostles to bishops' seems relevant to what you say about the church order during the time of st ignatius here. What do you think of the developmental view of the presbyterate as a lower priesthood participating in what we now call the episcopate, the fullness of the presbyterate? His book seems to make a very strong case that the sacramental distinction between the two emerges later than St Ignatius.
I think that you did an excellent job! It was very clear. The Eucharistic nature of the Mystery and Sacrifice of Divine Liturgy/Mass and the presbyters under their Ordinary in the performance of the sole acceptable act of worship in persona Christi, of the Son’s Sacrifice to reconcile us to the a Father through the Holy Spirit, in a particular church, is essential. Their unity is also manifest by the Magisterial binding and loosening, which Christ gave to the college of Apostles, and thus their successors. Historically, biblically and within the writings of the Fathers, the Petrine office has made adjudication in other local churches, I believe, principally when needed, and with the principle of subsidiaries, which respects the Body of Christ in its synodality. It is when this is done imprudently, and by the failings of men, and/or there are underlying ruptures in that collegiality, which need to be healed, that cracks may occur, which might lead to schism. However, this is more than Peter (and his successors) being given the keys solely, but not to the college of bishops. There is an inherent unity, as can be manifest in the episcopal patriarchy that binds the Eucharistic communities by their presbyteries to their bishop, and further today binding bishops to their patriarch to, preserve the origin of their Catholic Church. The pontificate binds the patriarchs, without abrogating their Divinely-given dignity and authority, in order to preserve the Rites given to them by their founding apostles, and to safeguard the unity amongst the Rites within the abounding treasure of their genuine catholic diversity. Moreover, the Magisterial duties of the episcopal college is to help all of the multiple Eastern and Western Churches in solidarity upon and under Cephas to retain their lamp stands in spirit and truth. Christ’s Body longs for two lungs, that all may be one. The principle of unity and identity lies in Christ’s Vicar. The main wound of pride come from mistakenly believing that unity under Peter would constitute a win of one side (this is only merely human figuring), when, all the while, the wounds of division are far more egregiously crippling for the faithful and those seeking God’s Church. The branch and the vine are not merely human offices, but lie within the Trinity united to the Hypostatic Union that has entered into human history and created a new priesthood in the order of Melchizedek not only to be a Parousia in the present and eternal through the mysteries, but to transform and bring those in communion into the Kingdom of heaven, as depicted in the Book of a Revelations (re the Sanctus). Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, holding to our hearts the sublime Divine gifts of all the seven Sacraments, with the supremacy of the Eucharist as Christ Himself, soul, body and Divinity, which protesting ecclesial communities have rejected, let the Churches be one under the unitive principle of the Primacy, which is inseparable form the unitive office that heads the college of the apostles, who have the fullness of the priesthood that literally, under Divine command, do what was commanded, so that God brings Christ to dwell amongst us, uniquely in spirit and substance through our most loving obedience.
This is cool but as Dr Declue points out in his paper in communio (and I agree) Ratzinger says that the patriarchate is not divinely instituted but rather an ecclesiastical institution
@@syedhasanahmed3514 I do no think that in my reply that I indicated that I thought that the patriarchates were divinely instituted, as some kind of direct act of God, save through Jesus’ liturgical command in the Cenacle to do this fulfillment of the Passover in His memory; i.e., to make Him present, so that we might all be present at Calvary. I was all the more trying to point out the unity in diversity of the different rites, that were the historical product of faithful apostles and/or the successor bishops being inspired by the Grand Commission to bring forth the necessary elements of a Divine Liturgy that geographically situated itself in a place, and thusly, though the apostolate of that particular Church spread to other places loyal to the traditions of that rite, which is a direct product of Our Lord entering human history and thus affecting it in his mystical body, which is defined by this Trinitarianly ordered Christocentric act that was experienced by the first bishops in the upper room, and fully witnessed in its fulfillment by the Apostle John at the foot of the Cross when Christ said that It is accomplished. That is what we do to have Zoe in God, vs bio. These unitive events in God, shared with the ones that Christ chose that are passed down as the sole act of worship, through which all other sacramentals draw their power because of its identification with Christ, is why those with the fullness of the priesthood travelled from their homes to other places to win new disciples. The natural consequence of something which is not merely theatrical is that it would have different manifestations from the human natures of these different faithful Eucharistic Ministers, would differ in accident, but not in essence, but just a Sacred Scripture follows Sacred Tradition in history, the cult that undergirds culture is a natural (albeit - I agree with you, not necessarily necessary) manifestation of those distinctions. The Church could have commanded greater uniformity, but it is telling that She did not. The fact the apostolic and Church fathers’ counsel of the early church proffered no objection to these difference, save from Paul’s pointing out on other matters that there is no Paul, Cephas, or Apollo, so that as Jesus warned that we would not be a church of rabbis, with gurus that we followed in a cult of personality. Moreover the point stands even if we did not have patriarchs, and I understand that the fact that we do is part of the knotty problems of this sad and unfortunate schism, which makes us all bleed internally. We accommodate these rites because they, in no way, are an impediment to the Divine, but an instrument, save for our lack of charity. Thus I hope that I have been clearer to point out that I am not pointing to a divine necessity of the patriarchs, only its historical reality in the life of the Church, which sometimes reflects the arguments that the apostles had, to their embarrassment, behind Jesus’ back. It would not be Catholic to dissolve a Rite, or remove its privileges. Indeed the principle of subsidiarity would necessitates any rite that would do something egregious, for the Universal Church to help Her restore what she truly is. That is the role of the Petrine office lived well and accepted, in its office of unity, but never to diminish the Rites, including the West that are under that office. I trust and hope that I find you well in grace, and that I have clarified my comment on Dr. DeClues statements, but I urge both of you to please weigh in if my scholarship is poor.
Another very well done presentation declue! I’ve read ratzinger on this topic and you present his position extremely well. Ratzinger at some point wrote a commentary on the first chapter of lumen gentium. Are you familiar with it? If so could you at some point do a presentation on it?
Hello, Brian! Thank you for your kind words. I am familiar with it. I plan to do an episode on his understanding of Primacy and Collegiality, based on another article I wrote.
@@briandolan1122 I'll look into it. I had access to a substantial library and academic databases as a graduate student. If you have access to a university library you may be able to get it. In the meantime, there's another work of his on Lumen Gentium for free on EWTN's website: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecclesiology-of-the-constitution-on-the-church-vatican-ii-lumen-gentium-2068&ved=2ahUKEwii2My5_5_qAhU_knIEHc6SCUsQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2JyQeAq3cVOMekyg2_bzEg
DeClue's Views thanks DeClue I just finished reading the piece, what a gift to the church thesis great man is! Where would we be without him! I can see the pain in his heart behind this plea to those who simply won’t listen. It really must come down to a division between those who can only see the church as an institution of men and those who understand it to be a mystery given to us by God and structured with divine governance- the hierarchy
Please consider supporting my efforts via Donor Box here:
donorbox.org/sapientia-nulliformis-blog-support
To read my blog, click here:
declubac.wixsite.com/sapientianulliformis
I’ve recently been reading de Lubac’s view on this in “The Motherhood of the Church” so I’m glad I found this video
De Lubac’s ecclesiology, I think, is among his best work. If you haven’t read it, I also recommend his “Splendor of the Church.”
As an Eastern Catholic, I believe Zizoulas's answer to your concern regarding his eucharistic ecclesiology rendering the parish the local church would be to state that the local parish does not exist apart from the bishop. It is similar to the view that a confession is only valid when the bishop of the jurisdiction has given the power to hear confessions to a priest, which is something you mention in another video. As evidence, one might bring up the liturgical practice of early Rome to have what we would refer to as today as the liturgy of the word, or of the Catechumens, in various places within the city. The faithful would then receive the eucharist from the bishops' liturgy, carried to them by the presbyters. This later developed, as I understand it, to entire liturgies separate from the bishops, but in which a particle of the eucharist from the bishop's liturgy would be mixed with the newly consecrated eucharist. This idea has some interesting consequences, and I don't know if it has ever really been explored, but there is definitely this idea of one liturgy, that of the bishop, in eastern liturgical thought. I think that your question would not be a problem for Zizoulas because of this.
Also, I am so glad I found your channel. It brings me such joy to hear someone give an honest explanation of theology. And it is getting me through a few slow days at work. I can't thank you enough.
That is accurate, and it is the same in Eastern and Latin Catholic thought.
Are you able to do a video on the differences between scotus, aquinas, bonaventure & palamas and your thoughts on the pros/cons of their views on divine simplicity?
I don’t know enough about Scotus or Palamas to be of much help in that regard, unfortunately.
Hi Dr DeClue. You mentioned your association with Fr Francis Sullivan recently - his work 'from apostles to bishops' seems relevant to what you say about the church order during the time of st ignatius here. What do you think of the developmental view of the presbyterate as a lower priesthood participating in what we now call the episcopate, the fullness of the presbyterate? His book seems to make a very strong case that the sacramental distinction between the two emerges later than St Ignatius.
I think that you did an excellent job! It was very clear. The Eucharistic nature of the Mystery and Sacrifice of Divine Liturgy/Mass and the presbyters under their Ordinary in the performance of the sole acceptable act of worship in persona Christi, of the Son’s Sacrifice to reconcile us to the a Father through the Holy Spirit, in a particular church, is essential. Their unity is also manifest by the Magisterial binding and loosening, which Christ gave to the college of Apostles, and thus their successors. Historically, biblically and within the writings of the Fathers, the Petrine office has made adjudication in other local churches, I believe, principally when needed, and with the principle of subsidiaries, which respects the Body of Christ in its synodality. It is when this is done imprudently, and by the failings of men, and/or there are underlying ruptures in that collegiality, which need to be healed, that cracks may occur, which might lead to schism. However, this is more than Peter (and his successors) being given the keys solely, but not to the college of bishops. There is an inherent unity, as can be manifest in the episcopal patriarchy that binds the Eucharistic communities by their presbyteries to their bishop, and further today binding bishops to their patriarch to, preserve the origin of their Catholic Church. The pontificate binds the patriarchs, without abrogating their Divinely-given dignity and authority, in order to preserve the Rites given to them by their founding apostles, and to safeguard the unity amongst the Rites within the abounding treasure of their genuine catholic diversity. Moreover, the Magisterial duties of the episcopal college is to help all of the multiple Eastern and Western Churches in solidarity upon and under Cephas to retain their lamp stands in spirit and truth. Christ’s Body longs for two lungs, that all may be one. The principle of unity and identity lies in Christ’s Vicar. The main wound of pride come from mistakenly believing that unity under Peter would constitute a win of one side (this is only merely human figuring), when, all the while, the wounds of division are far more egregiously crippling for the faithful and those seeking God’s Church. The branch and the vine are not merely human offices, but lie within the Trinity united to the Hypostatic Union that has entered into human history and created a new priesthood in the order of Melchizedek not only to be a Parousia in the present and eternal through the mysteries, but to transform and bring those in communion into the Kingdom of heaven, as depicted in the Book of a Revelations (re the Sanctus). Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, holding to our hearts the sublime Divine gifts of all the seven Sacraments, with the supremacy of the Eucharist as Christ Himself, soul, body and Divinity, which protesting ecclesial communities have rejected, let the Churches be one under the unitive principle of the Primacy, which is inseparable form the unitive office that heads the college of the apostles, who have the fullness of the priesthood that literally, under Divine command, do what was commanded, so that God brings Christ to dwell amongst us, uniquely in spirit and substance through our most loving obedience.
Thank you! I appreciate your thoughtful comments and compliments.
This is cool but as Dr Declue points out in his paper in communio (and I agree) Ratzinger says that the patriarchate is not divinely instituted but rather an ecclesiastical institution
@@syedhasanahmed3514 I do no think that in my reply that I indicated that I thought that the patriarchates were divinely instituted, as some kind of direct act of God, save through Jesus’ liturgical command in the Cenacle to do this fulfillment of the Passover in His memory; i.e., to make Him present, so that we might all be present at Calvary. I was all the more trying to point out the unity in diversity of the different rites, that were the historical product of faithful apostles and/or the successor bishops being inspired by the Grand Commission to bring forth the necessary elements of a Divine Liturgy that geographically situated itself in a place, and thusly, though the apostolate of that particular Church spread to other places loyal to the traditions of that rite, which is a direct product of Our Lord entering human history and thus affecting it in his mystical body, which is defined by this Trinitarianly ordered Christocentric act that was experienced by the first bishops in the upper room, and fully witnessed in its fulfillment by the Apostle John at the foot of the Cross when Christ said that It is accomplished. That is what we do to have Zoe in God, vs bio. These unitive events in God, shared with the ones that Christ chose that are passed down as the sole act of worship, through which all other sacramentals draw their power because of its identification with Christ, is why those with the fullness of the priesthood travelled from their homes to other places to win new disciples. The natural consequence of something which is not merely theatrical is that it would have different manifestations from the human natures of these different faithful Eucharistic Ministers, would differ in accident, but not in essence, but just a Sacred Scripture follows Sacred Tradition in history, the cult that undergirds culture is a natural (albeit - I agree with you, not necessarily necessary) manifestation of those distinctions. The Church could have commanded greater uniformity, but it is telling that She did not. The fact the apostolic and Church fathers’ counsel of the early church proffered no objection to these difference, save from Paul’s pointing out on other matters that there is no Paul, Cephas, or Apollo, so that as Jesus warned that we would not be a church of rabbis, with gurus that we followed in a cult of personality. Moreover the point stands even if we did not have patriarchs, and I understand that the fact that we do is part of the knotty problems of this sad and unfortunate schism, which makes us all bleed internally. We accommodate these rites because they, in no way, are an impediment to the Divine, but an instrument, save for our lack of charity. Thus I hope that I have been clearer to point out that I am not pointing to a divine necessity of the patriarchs, only its historical reality in the life of the Church, which sometimes reflects the arguments that the apostles had, to their embarrassment, behind Jesus’ back. It would not be Catholic to dissolve a Rite, or remove its privileges. Indeed the principle of subsidiarity would necessitates any rite that would do something egregious, for the Universal Church to help Her restore what she truly is. That is the role of the Petrine office lived well and accepted, in its office of unity, but never to diminish the Rites, including the West that are under that office. I trust and hope that I find you well in grace, and that I have clarified my comment on Dr. DeClues statements, but I urge both of you to please weigh in if my scholarship is poor.
Another very well done presentation declue! I’ve read ratzinger on this topic and you present his position extremely well. Ratzinger at some point wrote a commentary on the first chapter of lumen gentium. Are you familiar with it? If so could you at some point do a presentation on it?
Hello, Brian! Thank you for your kind words. I am familiar with it. I plan to do an episode on his understanding of Primacy and Collegiality, based on another article I wrote.
Do you know if there is a way to get hold of a copy of it? I would very much like to read it
@@briandolan1122 I'll look into it. I had access to a substantial library and academic databases as a graduate student. If you have access to a university library you may be able to get it. In the meantime, there's another work of his on Lumen Gentium for free on EWTN's website: www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/ecclesiology-of-the-constitution-on-the-church-vatican-ii-lumen-gentium-2068&ved=2ahUKEwii2My5_5_qAhU_knIEHc6SCUsQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw2JyQeAq3cVOMekyg2_bzEg
DeClue's Views thanks DeClue I just finished reading the piece, what a gift to the church thesis great man is! Where would we be without him! I can see the pain in his heart behind this plea to those who simply won’t listen. It really must come down to a division between those who can only see the church as an institution of men and those who understand it to be a mystery given to us by God and structured with divine governance- the hierarchy