St?niloae’s Sacramental Theology In Dialogue With Afanasiev’s Eucharistic Ecclesiology
Presentation at the 4th Symposium of Romanian Spirituality, St. Paul University, Ottawa ON, March 5, 2011
This paper looks at two concepts introduced by Orthodox theologians to foster the ecumenical dialogue, namely eucharistic ecclesiology and open sobornicity. In doing so, it deals with at least two important sacraments, the eucharist and the episcopate. Some ten years ago when I first dealt with this issue, I considered Nicholas Afanasiev, John Zizioulas, and Dumitru Staniloae. This time, however, I am focusing only on Afanasiev and Staniloae (due to time constraints), while incorporating some of the relevant scholarship that has been produced since then.
After an exposition of the concept of eucharistic ecclesiology developed by the Russian emigré theologian Nicholas Afanasiev, an evaluation of it will follow. A critique made by the Romanian theologian Dumitru Staniloae of eucharistic ecclesiology will be accompanied by an analysis of the concept of "open sobornicity" which Staniloae proposed In 1971. A brief report will be included on each theologian’s positions vis-à-vis "papal primacy," since this issue stimulated the formulation of a eucharistic ecclesiology.
N. Afanasiev's eucharistic ecclesiology
By proposing the concept of "eucharistic ecclesiology" at the beginning of the 1960s, Nicholas Afanasiev (1893-1966) wanted to bypass the impasse reached in the dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics which had just been re-opened. This impasse had been reached mainly because of the issue of the primacy of the pope.
The Orthodox were preoccupied with giving to the primacy or "Petrine ministry" a sense that they could accept. Fifty years later, they still are, as indicated by the 2010 Vienna meeting of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.1 Of a number of essays Afanasiev wrote on these issues, “The Church Presiding In Love”2 and "Una Sancta" will be considered.
Afanasiev speaks of "several systems of ecclesiology" which have grown up in history, each of them understanding the notion of primacy In a different way. Yet all of these systems can be reduced, In his view, to two fundamental types: universal ecclesiology and eucharistic ecclesiology.
According to universal ecclesiology, the Church is a single organic whole, including In itself all church units (chaque unité ecclésiale) of any kind, especially those headed by bishops. This organic whole is the Body of Christ.... Usually the church units are regarded as parts of the universal Church: less usually people see In each church a pars pro toto.3
Both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology have espoused this universal ecclesiology devised, according to Afanasiev, by Cyprian of Carthage, and both consider that there is only one true Church.4 The major difficulty arises, according to our author, when the Orthodox consider the Orthodox Church to be the true Church, whereas for the Catholics that designates the Roman Catholic Church.5 Therefore, a reunion of the two churches is impossible according to this ecclesiology, because if one is the true, universal Church, the other has to be excluded; otherwise, one has to recognize that there are two Bodies of Christ.6
Yet this view is not the primitive ecclesiology, contends Afanasiev. In his opinion, universal ecclesiology has replaced a different form of ecclesiology, which he calls "eucharistic ecclesiology."7 Afanasiev starts reconstituting this primitive ecclesiology, mainly from some letters of Ignatius of Antioch. Afanasiev says that every local church throughout the second and third centuries was "autonomous, for it contained in itself everything necessary to its life, and independent by not depending on any other local church or any bishop whatsoever outside itself." This was so, continues Afanasiev, "in virtue of the fact that each local church was the Church of God In all its fullness"; 8 this fullness was realized by a local community gathered around its bishop who celebrates the Eucharist, because In each eucharistic assembly Christ is present "in the fullness of His Body." In other words, "Where the Eucharist is, there is the fullness of the Church."9 So what becomes important In this ecclesiology is the notion of local church at the expense of that of universal Church. Although not rejecting the idea of "the universality of the Church" by expressing rather an interior universality of "fullness and unity," eucharistic ecclesiology In fact excludes "any concept of the Universal Church, for the Universal Church consists of parts, if it exists at all."10 By considering that the local church possesses all the fullness of the Church, Afanasiev transfers all the attributes of the universal Church (sanctity, unity, catholicity and apostolicity) to the local church.11
Then he argues that originally there existed In each local church a single eucharistic assembly presided over by a bishop. The bishop was the principle of unity of the local church, and the basis of his ministry was presidency of the eucharistic assembly. Consequently, the bishop was "included In the concept of the Eucharist."12 In the universal ecclesiology, according to Afanasiev, the bishop is not included In the eucharistic assembly, but is considered In his own person the principle of unity.13
When arriving at the issue of unity among local churches, Afanasiev says that, albeit autonomous and independent, they were united. This unity was manifested through reception: one local church had to accept what was happening (ce qui se passait) In other local churches, "because what was happening In one church was also happening In the other churches."14 Yet local churches could also refuse to recognize what was happening In a local church or even break off communion with it. "By refusing to accept a certain ecclesial act, local churches witnessed that that act did not happen In the Church of God."15 He then considers that the "certification" of a bishop's election was among the acts that other local churches had to receive.
Subsequently Afanasiev contends that, though being by nature equal In value, local churches are not necessarily equal In authority. This leads to hierarchy among them, or as he prefers to express it, to "priority."16 Nevertheless, he insists that "priority" is different from "primacy": "primacy is a legalistic expression, whereas priority is founded on authority of witness, and that is a gift God grants to the church-in-priority (l'église qui a la priorité)."17 The consequences are important: "if you accept the idea of primacy, you must ban eucharistic ecclesiology; conversely, accept priority and there is no room for universal ecclesiology."18
Critical analysis of Afanasiev's eucharistic ecclesiology
Having summarized Afanasiev's theory of eucharistic ecclesiology, I wish to comment on it before turning my attention to Staniloae. One has to recognize that the theory of eucharistic ecclesiology has been highly influential In both Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologies ever since its formulation. Concerning the influence of eucharistic ecclesiology on Roman Catholic theology, Paul McPartlan showed19 that theologians influential during Vatican îi were acquainted with Afanasiev's ecclesiology. For instance, In a footnote to the penultimate draft of Lumen gentium, the Belgian Gérard Philips recommended to the bishop perusing the draft text that "to investigate further `the bond between ecclesiology and the Eucharist' he should consult the writings of Afanasiev."20 Aidan Nichols identifies references to Afanasiev's "The Church which Presides in Love" In three of the "General Congregations" where the documents of the Second Vatican Council were produced.21 Another Roman Catholic theologian, Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), accepted the centrality of the Eucharist In the bishop's office. Unlike Afanasiev, however, he has been trying to rediscover the other functions of the bishop, those of unifier and teacher, "within the bishop's sanctifying role at the Eucharist."22 The Belgian Roman Catholic André de Halleux calls Afanasiev's vision of the "eucharistic ecclesiology" of the East "romantic," but adds that his analyses of the local church helped the theologians of Vatican îi "to rediscover the theology of the local church which has never ceased to flourish In the ecclesial conscience of the Orthodoxy."23 Without lessening the contributions Roman Catholic theologians themselves made to Vatican II, nor the renewal brought about In Roman Catholicism by the liturgical movement and the ressourcement, one could also say that, by and large, In our day Orthodox and Roman Catholic theologies have achieved a remarkable convergence through mutual influences in the fields of the Eucharist and the Church.24
Despite its positive value, Afanasiev's theory of "eucharistic ecclesiology" has some drawbacks and internal contradictions. First, Afanasiev asserts that local churches are "independent by not depending on any other local church or any bishop whatsoever outside itself." Yet, at the same time, he says that a local church depends on its recognition by other local churches, and that its bishop is ordained by bishops of other local churches. If so, then one can no longer maintain that local churches are independent. Moreover, the affirmation of the "priority" among local churches contradicts still more their alleged "independence," because if one local church has priority over the others, then the others depend on the witness of the "church-in-priority." Consequently, they are not independent.
Second, I must confess that I do not really see the difference between "primacy" and "priority." Afanasiev may reply to this: the former is a "legalistic expression" (that is, a human decision about an aspect of the Church), whereas the latter belongs to the realm of grace (that is, it can be traced to Christ's or the Holy Spirit's instructions). Yet, I am still unconvinced. In an article on the catholicity of the Church, Michael Fahey says not only that the ius divinum and the ius humanum "may In the past have been unintentionally blurred," but also that particular prestige came to be associated with certain local churches for a variety of reasons such as "real or imagined apostolic origins, geographical location, political power, effective leadership."25 Therefore, I think, a distinction between "primacy" and "priority" is not possible.26 Consequently, Afanasiev actually supports the idea of a real primacy, despite his initial intention when he formulated the eucharistic ecclesiology. Moreover, according to his own contention, it is the Church of Rome that should have this primacy, because this church is In fact the one "which presides in love."27
Third, the limitation of the bishop's functions to only the celebration of the Eucharist is simplistic. In the early Church the bishop was not only the presider at the Eucharist, but also an "overseer" or "supervisor" (the principal meaning of the Greek episkopos) of the Christian flock, a role that included teaching and preservation of the true faith as well.
When Afanasiev speaks about the process of "reception" taking place among local churches, he uses a vague expression: a local church had to accept "what was happening In other local churches." He never mentions the reception of a confession of faith of another church, for example, because he knows that this is the delicate issue at stake In the ecumenical dialogue nowadays. Yet is he justified In his avoidance? Or, to put it better, is one church's politely overlooking the differences of doctrine really the way to come to unity, as he suggests? Afanasiev says that, according to eucharistic ecclesiology, it is possible for two churches "which fully possess the ecclesial nature" to reunite without having to eliminate the dogmatic divergences existing between them. 28 Yet the early Church was very careful to defend its faith, even before the emergence of important creeds, such as the Nicene creed (in 325). As André de Halleux notes, "the necessity to defend the apostolic tradition led the Church to elaborate a reflex doctrine of the apostolic tradition and succession which was silently lived until then: paradosis kata diadochen [tradition by succession]."29
Dumitru Staniloae's critique of eucharistic ecclesiology
The Romanian Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae (1903-1993) is among those who have not subscribed to Afanasiev's eucharistic ecclesiology. Next, I will present Staniloae's position vis-à-vis eucharistic ecclesiology. Instead of eucharistic ecclesiology as a concept that would foster ecumenical dialogue, Staniloae proposed a concept he calls "open sobornicity."
In an article published In 1966, Staniloae discusses extensively Afanasiev's article "Una Sancta". In Staniloae's view, the three most important ministries of the bishop are: "preaching the truth," "overseeing the faithful" and "celebrating the eucharist."30 Even if it is true that all ministries culminate In the celebration of the eucharist, the latter is not the only ministry, as Afanasiev implies. "All in all," Staniloae contends, "the celebration of the eucharist is related to the preservation of the truth In the Church as well."31
When arriving at the controversial point In Afanasiev's article of the union among local churches, Staniloae shows the double contradiction contained in Afanasiev's argumentation. He notes:
“Afanasiev seems to be willing to vouchsafe a certain importance to the union among local churches. Yet, when describing this union, on the one hand, he minimizes its importance by declaring that everything happening In a local church happens In other local churches as well. On the other hand, he invalidates the thesis about the plenitude of the local church, by declaring that In each local church things can happen that do not happen In other local churches; consequently, [in Afanasiev's opinion] it is useful for a local church to accept what happens In other local churches.” 32
According to Staniloae, the small local church possesses ecclesial plenitude, precisely because it does not break off with the ensemble formed by all local churches. "Otherwise," he continues, "the small local church would not be interested In what happens In other local churches. Nor would it be necessary for it to receive the witness of the Spirit dwelling In it about the works of the same Spirit dwelling In other local churches."33 Consequently, Staniloae accepts the idea of a local church's ecclesial plenitude, but only within the framework of the universal Church, that is, when the local church maintains communion and the same faith with all other local churches. A local church isolated from other local churches loses its ecclesial character, In his view.34 This is exactly what Afanasiev fails to accept.
Afanasiev deals with the issue of a local church's being isolated by other local churches when the latter no longer recognize what is happening In the former. He says: "In refusing to accept a certain ecclesial act, local churches witness that that act does not take place In the Church of God."35 At this point he is confused and hesitant, not knowing what to call this state of isolation; eventually he labels it a "weakening of the love" among local churches. Afanasiev categorically avoids the phrase "excommunication," since "from the point of view of eucharistic ecclesiology such ‘excommunications’ are impossible… since a local church cannot amputate another [local] church from the Church, because this would mean that the Church excommunicates itself."36 In colloquial English, this can be summarized as “a local church shoots itself In the foot”.
Staniloae sees things differently. To him, when a local church goes astray from the apostolic faith shared until then with other local churches, the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of truth, will prompt the other local churches to break off communion with it. By this process is prevented the danger of the spread of error In the entire Church. Nonetheless, this action has a positive side, too; it awakes the consciousness of error In the community thus warned and maintains it In a state of doubt, preparing hereby its return to the truth. 37
The major ecclesiological dissimilarity between Afanasiev and Staniloae is due to their positions vis-à-vis the Holy Spirit. Afanasiev assigns almost no role to the Holy Spirit In his eucharistic ecclesiology. Afanasiev's eucharistic ecclesiology is definitely christocentric. In contradistinction to Afanasiev, Staniloae's ecclesiology is thoroughly pneumatic. According to Staniloae, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth, and hence the guardian of true, apostolic faith In the Church. Afanasiev opines that "where a eucharistic community is gathered around its bishop, there is the church integrally." To this Staniloae prefers Irenaeus of Lyon's formula: "Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace; and the Spirit is the truth. Those, therefore, who do not participate In the Spirit neither feed at their mother's breasts nor drink the bright fountain issuing from Christ's body." 38 Consequently, Staniloae would not subscribe to the formula "the eucharist makes the church" without the qualification that the eucharist must be conditioned by the truth, i.e., the true faith. He considers that the priest's urging "Let us love one another, so that with one mind we may confess [emphasis added]," followed by the confession of faith before the epiclesis during the Orthodox liturgy, have not been fortuitously inserted into the liturgical text. Moreover, the holy eucharist itself clarifies the minds of the believers; therefore, according to Staniloae, they can sing after communion: "We have seen the true light! We have received the heavenly Spirit! We have found the true faith! Therefore, let us worship the undivided Trinity who has saved us."39
The relationship between the Eucharist and the unity of faith is taken up again In Staniloae’s magnum opus, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (3 volumes, published In Romanian in 1978). In it, the argument about the Eucharist as the sacrament of the unity of the Church goes as follows.40 The Word of God is the one person of Jesus Christ. As such, through unity in the Eucharist with us, individual humans, he becomes a “direct subject of our own body and blood.” This allows for his everlasting life to be transmitted to us and for us to grow In his eternal life. As the Apostle Paul wrote In Gal 2:20: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives In me. The life I now live In the body, I live by faith In the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” This union with Christ leads to union with other believers, since they too in the Eucharist are united with Christ. Therefore, he writes, “The Eucharist is the act of a realization and continuing growth of the unity of the Church,” as it serves as “the basis and source of a perfect love among the Church’s members.” In the Eucharist, each member of the Church lives and experiences the life of all the other members through the mind of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. The union with God leads In his view to the believers adopting the mind of Christ, and thus becoming one. The union becomes unity. Staniloae calls the Eucharist “the sacrament of the unity of the Church par excellence” (TDO 3:61). Please note, however, that the unity of all believers with Christ and each other is realized In Staniloae through love and common witness.
The above-mentioned argument about the confession of the creed before the anaphora is also used here: “Let us love one another that with one mind we may confess.” Communion is possible at this point, because the believers already share In a certain unity of faith that followed their acceptance of the sacrament of baptism. Sharing In the Lord’s body and blood brings additional unity and the strengthening of the existing unity. Staniloae invokes at this point some older liturgical texts, such as the Liturgy of St. Basil of Caesarea, during which the priest prays on behalf of all believers after the transformation of the gifts of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, but before the actual communion: “Let all of us, who are sharing In one bread and one cup, become united with one another through the communion of the same Spirit.” Also, the Didache of the Twelve Apostles is invoked In favor of the unity of all believers: “Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom” (Didache, ch. 9).
Because the Eucharist is such an important sacrament of unity among the believers and local churches themselves, Staniloae is opposed to sacramental sharing with members who decide to stay outside the Church. Staniloae considers primacy among local churches purely administrative and functional, since all local churches are equal and not a single one of them can have a privileged union with Christ. The bishop primate has only a role of presidency of the episcopal college "for the sake of human, cultural, administrative facilities, being assisted by the political center In which he had his residence." 41
Staniloae's concept of "open sobornicity"
Staniloae sees Pentecost as the event that sealed the birth of the Church. Therefore, along with The Shepherd of Hermas,42 Gregory Nazianzen,43 and John Chrysostom,44 he believes that during Pentecost the Holy Spirit infuses "a common way of thinking In those who come to believe which makes them understand one another despite all the differences of expression which may exist among them."45 This makes the Church the opposite of the Tower of Babel. At the same time, the common way of thinking symbolizes the unity in diversity that the Church should reflect, because those who have received the same understanding preserved their distinctive languages. Drawing on this insight, In 1971 Staniloae proposed a concept that would help foster ecumenical dialogue among the churches, namely "open sobornicity." To explain this concept and show its usefulness for ecumenical dialogue, first I have to make clear what "sobornicity" means to Staniloae.
"Sobornicity" (from the Slavic sobornaya, which means both "universal" and "conciliar") is the third mark of the Church as described In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, i.e., universality or catholicity. Yet In Staniloae's and some Russian Orthodox theologians' view, sobornicity has to do with the inner life of the Church rather than with its geographical extension.46 It is the Holy Spirit who, as the "Spirit of communion," holds together all the members of the Church without melting them to form a single part. And Staniloae adds:
In this sense sobornicity can also be expressed as communion. Sobornicity is not unity pure and simple; it is a certain kind of unity. There is the unity of a whole In which the constitutive parts are not distinct, or the unity of a group that is kept together by an exterior command, or formed into a union of uniform entities each existing side by side. Sobornicity is none of these. It is distinguished from an undifferentiated unity by being of a special kind, the unity of communion…. The unity of communion is the sole unity that conforms to the dignity of the persons involved In the union. It is the sole unity which does not subordinate one person to another, or in which the institution is not conceived as something external to or superior to and repressive of the persons involved In it. 47
One idea that influences Staniloae is that of “spiritual intercommunion,” a notion he first used In 1969 under the influence of the ecumenical movement.48 "Spiritual intercommunion" is a form of communion that promotes common prayer, study and action among the Orthodox and other Christians. This intercommunion is necessary "so that the Holy Spirit can multiply the `connections' among our churches; by these connections the life In Christ of our churches may be transmitted from one church to another, thus becoming more and more alike."49 Yet spiritual intercommunion is not a communion In the means of salvation (communio In sacris); still less is it a eucharistic hospitality.
Given all these preliminary remarks, I can proceed to explain the concept of "open sobornicity."50 In the concept of "open sobornicity," every theological system is welcomed as offering some valid theological insight:
[Sobornicity] has to be the gathering (sobor) of the whole world, where all Christians bring together their understanding of the whole revealed divine reality and of the whole human reality seen In the light of the integral revelation. By so doing, they share their understanding with all and each can participate In the understanding of all.51
Moreover, Christians have to be aware that new ways to express the divine reality are possible and necessary; therefore, these new ways have to be welcomed also, if they are "transparencies of God, i.e., indicate something of God's being." Through openness to others, one's understanding is enriched, and thus a more symphonic, although not uniform, understanding of the universal and divine reality is achieved.52 Nevertheless, the weaknesses of each system must be criticized, continues Staniloae, because no system is capable of comprehending the entire divine reality.53
In the light of the concept of "open sobornicity," different understandings of the scriptural teachings appear as complementary rather than contradictory. In fact, Staniloae recognizes: "the Holy Scripture contains a diversity of meanings, sometimes complementary, at other times even contradictory, but the Scripture must be understood as a whole."54 Nevertheless, the legitimate interpretation of these meanings has to be made within the Church through the practice of sobornicity In order to avoid heresies that are born from a certain one-sidedness In interpretation. Heresy (from the Greek hairesis) represents the act of choosing a certain aspect pertaining to a complex reality at the expense of all other aspects. In Staniloae's view, "heresy implies a negation, a narrowing down, an impoverishment of the rich and complex theological reality."55
To sum up, Staniloae believes that the concept of "open sobornicity" is a proper tool to foster an authentic ecumenical dialogue without running the risk of doctrinal relativism. If one takes into account the richness of meanings this concept contains, one is led to believe that the stage into which the ecumenical dialogue enters by adopting this concept is a stage both necessary and willed by the Holy Spirit In the process of rapprochement which the churches seek. A glance at the ecumenical movement shows that, except for some churches (e.g. Anglicans and Lutherans) among which eucharistic sharing is growing, all other churches (Orthodox and Roman Catholic included) practice only a "spiritual intercommunion" and an "open sobornicity" In an attempt to know each other better before reaching a fuller koinonia. We should acknowledge though that the Catholic Church has taken a step further and allows for the offering of communion to the Orthodox under certain circumstances.
Newer research by theologians interested In communion (rather than just eucharistic) ecclesiology, including Fr. Radu Bordeianu, has revealed an interesting dimension of these aspects being discussed In my presentation. Thus, Fr. Radu has attempted to rescue the salvageable elements In Afanasiev’s eucharistic ecclesiology (in particular his emphasis on the role of the local church), learned from the critiques of Afanasiev by Zizioulas and Staniloae, and posited four elements of communion ecclesiology. These four elements are doctrinal unity, episcopal communion, love, and eucharistic/sacramental communion; and they should be viewed as signposts along the way of unity. As signposts, these elements could serve the goal of unity from a lesser to a more profound unity and thus be both means and signs of the unity our churches are seeking.
Fr. Radu believes that Staniloae was genuinely concerned with Christian unity
and he makes this case particularly In his book that is about to be published.
Personally, I believe that Staniloae’s concept of “open sobornicity” could be useful along this path, as it gives the possibility of increasing
rapprochement between our churches. Moreover, since we are In a Byzantine
Catholic institution, we should try to learn from the experience of our
Ukrainian Catholic brothers and sisters who live an ecclesiological life “in between” the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. I am sure that they can teach us a lot
about church unity.
Prof. Dr. Lucian Turcescu
Concordia University, Montreal
1 A press report on the meeting can be found at http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7732.
2 I shall use the English translation: Nicholas Afanasiev, The Church which Presides In Love In J. Meyendorff et al., The Primacy of Peter (London: The Faith Press, 1963), pp. 57-110.
3 N. Afanasiev, The Church which Presides In Love, p. 58. In "Una Sancta" he rehearses many ideas from "The Church," sometimes even word for word (cf. "Una Sancta," 440).
4 N. Afanasiev, Una Sancta, 443.
5 Afanasiev, Una Sancta, 444 ff.
6 Una Sancta, 443.
7 Afanasiev, The Church which Presides In Love, p. 73.
8 Afanasiev, The Church..., pp. 73 f.
9 Afanasiev, The Church..., p. 76; also "Una Sancta," 452-453.
10 Afanasiev, The Church..., p. 76.
11 Una Sancta, 452.
12 "inclus dans le concept de l'Eucharistie" (Una Sancta, 453).
13 Afanasiev, "Una Sancta," 453.
14 Afanasiev, "Una Sancta," 455.
15 Afanasiev, "Una Sancta," 456.
16 Afanasiev, "The Church...," p. 79.
17 Afanasiev, "The Church...," p. 82.
18 Afanasiev, "The Church...," p. 82.
19 Paul McPartlan, "Eucharistic Ecclesiology," One In Christ 22 (1986): 314-331.
20 McPartlan, "Eucharistic Ecclesiology," 326.
21 A. Nichols, Theology In the Russian Diaspora, p. 173, n. 51.
22 McPartlan, "Eucharistic Ecclesiology," 327.
23 André de Halleux, "La collégialité dans l'Église ancienne," Revue théologique de Louvain 24 (1993): 436.
24 For an overview of these mutual influences cf. Gaëtan Baillargeon, Perspectives orthodoxes sur l'Église-Communion: l'oeuvre de Jean Zizioulas (Montréal: Éditions Paulines, 1989), especially pp. 381 ff.; Aidan Nichols, Theology In the Russian Diaspora. Church, Fathers, Eucharist In Nikolai Afanasiev (1893-1966) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), especially pp. 175 ff.; Paul McPartlan's already mentioned article and his book The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri de Lubac and John Zizioulas In Dialogue (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993).
25 Michael A. Fahey, "The Catholicity of the Church In the New Testament and In the Early Patristic Period," The Jurist 52 (1992): 64, 67.
26 Cf. also A. de Halleux, "La collégialité dans l'Église ancienne," 437.
27 Afanasiev, "Una Sancta," 471 ff.
28 "Una Sancta," 469.
29 A. de Halleux, "Ministère et sacerdoce," Revue théologique de Louvain 18 (1987): 296 f.
30 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca" [The universal and sobornost Church] Ortodoxia 18 (1966): 169.
31 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca" Ortodoxia 18 (1966): 169.
32 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca" Ortodoxia 18 (1966): 170.
33 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca" Ortodoxia 18 (1966): 171.
34 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca" Ortodoxia 18 (1966): 171 f.
35 Afanasiev, "Una Sancta," p. 456.
36 Afanasiev, "Una Sancta," 456 ff.
37 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca" Ortodoxia 18 (1966): 171, 193.
38 Adversus Haereseos 3, 24, 1, PG 7:966A-C. Quoted by Staniloae In "Biserica universala si soborniceasca," 189.
39 Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca," 197. Cf. also his Spiritualitate si comuniune în liturghia ortodoxa [Spirituality and communion In the Orthodox liturgy] (Craiova, Romania: Editura Mitropoliei Olteniei, 1986), p. 399. English quotes of the liturgical text are taken from The Divine Liturgy according to Saint John Chrysostom, third edition (Detroit, MI: The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, 1975), pp. 78, 107.
40 TDO 3:60 ff.
41 D. Staniloae, "Biserica universala si soborniceasca," 194.
42 Sancti Hermae Pastor, Sim. 9, PG 2:979-1010. Ed. K. Lake, Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, London, 1924, pp. 216-296.
43 In Pentecostem Oratio 41, 16, PG 36:449C.
44 De Sancta Pentecoste Homilia 2, PG 50:467-468.
45 Dumitru Staniloae, "The Holy Spirit and the Sobornicity of the Church," chapter 2 of his Theology and the Church, tr. Robert Barringer (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1980), pp. 53 ff.
46 D. Staniloae, "The Holy Spirit and the Sobornicity of the Church," p. 56.
47 D. Staniloae, "The Holy Spirit and the Sobornicity of the Church," pp. 56 f.
48 D. Staniloae, "Teologia eucharistiei" [The theology of the eucharist], Ortodoxia 21 (1969): 361. A French translation of this article can be found In Contacts 22 (1970): 184-211.
49 D. Staniloae, "Teologia eucharistiei," Ortodoxia 21 (1969): 361. At this point Staniloae acknowledges his indebtedness to Nikos Nissiotis' "Worship, Eucharist and Intercommunion," Oikoumene no. 6, December 1962 (published by the Youth Department of the World Council of Churches), pp. 30-43.
50 To explain it, I shall use Staniloae's article "Sobornicitate deschisa" [Open sobornicity], Ortodoxia 23 (1971): 165-180.
51 "Sobornicitate deschisa," 172.
52 "Sobornicitate deschisa," 179.
53 "Sobornicitate deschisa," 173.
54 "Sobornicitate deschisa," 166.
55 "Sobornicitate deschisa," 167.