In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T E R 4 Orthodox Reactions to Vatican II This final chapter is divided into three sections, the first of which is divided into two parts. In the first of these sections, we will examine Karmiris’s general appreciation of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Church, while in the second part the main lines of Karmiris’s argumentation against Vatican II’s renewed understanding of primacy within the context of its teaching on episcopal collegiality will be analyzed. In arguing against this teaching, Karmiris moves along the same lines that he did with regard to Vatican I. As we saw in chapter 2, this approach was in turn criticized by a second group of Orthodox theologians, represented by Zizioulas and certain Russian theologians. The views of a number of other Greek Orthodox theologians will be indicated in the presentation of Karmiris’s position, and a further critique will be provided. Section 2 briefly presents some Greek Orthodox reactions to Vatican II’s understanding of missio canonica and of the distinction between potestas ordinis and potestas jurisdictionis. It will be seen that certain Greek Orthodox theologians believe that for Vatican II the episcopal power that is given through ordination is still dependent on papal power. Section 3 has three parts. The first is devoted to an examination of Zizi­ oulas’s critical assessment of the notion of episcopal collegiality. As we will see, in criticizing the Roman Catholic theory of episcopal collegiality, Zizi­ oulas makes no direct criticism of Vatican II’s view on the issue. That said, it will become clear that Zizioulas’s general critical assessment of the Roman Catholic concept of episcopal collegiality can also be applied to Vatican II. The second part of section 3 is concerned with Zizioulas’s understanding of the issue of primacy. We will see that he justifies the existence of primacy in the Church on the basis of dogmatic-theological principles that shape the life of the Church and lead directly to the institution of primacy. In other words, Zizioulas bases primacy upon certain theological-ecclesiological ORTHODOX REACTIONS TO VATICAN II 97 principles, such as “the one and the many,” which make the existence of primacy in the Church ecclesiologically necessary, i.e., jure divino, and which stem from the Church’s participation in trinitarian life. As we saw in chapter 2, the first group of Greek Orthodox theologians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries do not take this view. Finally, in the third part of section 3, the views of Nicholas Afanassieff, Alexander Schmemann, and John Meyendorff on the issue are reviewed. There are two reasons for bringing these three Russian theologians into the discussion. First, Zizioulas is critical of Afanassieff’s eucharistic ecclesiology, in particular because it does not heed the necessary unity between the local churches. By examining his critique of Afanassieff’s ecclesiology, we will underscore Zizioulas’s view on primacy, which, as we will see, is for Zizioulas a necessary institution for expressing the unity of the churches on the universal level. Secondly, while Zizioulas seems to share the views of the other two Russian theologians with regard to the ecclesiological justification and need for primacy, we will see that he actually differs from them in his justification. Whereas Schmemann and Meyendorff argue from a rather ecclesiological and canonical point of view, Zizioulas justifies the existence of primacy on strictly dogmatic-theological principles, namely from a triadological point of view. We should note at this point that the Orthodox were invited to attend Vatican II not as members of the council but as observers.1 As Ware rightly explains, “At the present juncture, for obvious reasons the Orthodox are unable to accept an invitation to an ecumenical council issued by the pope, since they feel that any such acceptance would involve implicitly their acquiescence in the doctrine of papal primacy as defined in 1870.”2 Karmiris’s Critique of Vatican II’s Definition of Papal Primacy and Episcopal Collegiality K A R M I R I S ’ S G E N E R A L A P P R E C I AT I O N O F VAT I C A N I I ’ S C O N S T I T U T I O N O N T H E C H U R C H In his treatise “The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council,” Karmiris posits that the Constitution is one of the...

Share