www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canon Law question

Dear Todd,

At the same time, however, does not Fr. Alexander Schmemann say that the authority of the bishop in the Church is "absolute?"

What did he mean by that?

Alex

Alex,

In the early Church's eucharistic ecclesiology each local or particular Church is the whole Church, that is, it is a realization of the one and identical Catholic and Apostolic Church; and each bishop, as head of the Church of God in his care, manifests the whole authority of episcopacy, and as such is the absolute sacramental authority of order within his Church. The fact that the bishop is "absolute" in his diocese excludes any concept of a "supreme power" over the bishop (or the local Church). In other words, the Roman universalist ecclesiology of the pre-Vatican II era, which sees the local Church as a part of a whole, and not as the full realization of the one and identical Church of Christ, is rejected as erroneous. The local bishop could not be absolute within his Church if there was a supreme power (episcopal or primatial) over him. Moreover, it is important to note that Fr. Schmemann denies that there is a unique charism of primacy, for as he puts it, there is "no sacramental order of primacy, [and] no charism of primacy exists"; instead there is only the sacramental order of episcopacy, and that is why the primate (local, regional, or universal) must be a "bishop of a local Church and not a 'bishop at large,' and his primacy belongs to him precisely because of his status in his own Church." [Fr. Schmemann, "The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," page 50] This of course is a rejection of the Roman theory that holds that the Pope's power is "personal." Thus, as Fr. Schmemann points out, the error of the Roman Church does not lie in its affirmation of the Bishop of Rome's universal primacy; "rather, the error lies in the identification of this primacy with 'supreme power' which transforms Rome into the principium radix et origio of the unity of the Church and of the Church herself." [Schmemann, page 48] Sadly the pre-Vatican II Roman ecclesiology, which is still reflected in the Roman Church's Code of Canon Law and in the Roman enforced Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, breaks the Church into pieces, which are then united through a juridical concept of hierarchical communion with the Pope, from whom all the other bishops in the Church receive the legal power to exercise the sacrament of orders that was bestowed upon them through the rite of episcopal consecration. To put it another way, the universalist ecclesiology of the Roman Church has broken the sacrament of orders itself into two parts: the first part is the grace of orders, whereby a bishop is made a bishop, that is, a priest after the order of Melchizedek; and the second part is the legal power to exercise the gift of orders already received, which only becomes effective through the legal concept of hierarchical communion with the Bishop of Rome. Now, as I am sure you are aware, this kind of division of the sacrament of orders (to episcopacy) is contrary to the doctrine of the early Church; and as such, it is not acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

God bless,
Todd

False dichotomy, Gordo.

Why is this a false dichotomy?

Point out the tertium quid, if you will, please.

Or even a quartum quid, if you have one.


Staro

Gordo is claiming (if I understand him correctly) that talks between Catholics and Orthodox can only be worthwhile if the theological disagreements are only apparent. I don't buy that.

Dear Todd,

What about the way some large Orthodox Churches are run in contemporary times?

The Russian Orthodox Patriarchate, as an example, since I have relatives who are priests with that jurisdiction.

What is the real qualitative difference between the way His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow runs his Church and that of the Pope of Rome?

Are not Patriarchs over their Metropolitans and Bishops in the same way as the Pope and other Hierarchs are over their episcopal charges?

Alex

Dear Peter,

I think Gordo is only asking some questions, rather than positing answers.

Orthodox theologians and hierarchs engage in dialogue with Roman Catholicism sincerely, of course, and see possibilities of eventual reunion precisely on the basis of Rome's "doctrinal development" where the Pope is empowered to change, alter or develop.

His Holiness the Pope realizes, as did his predecessor of holy memory, that there is an aspect of real adjustment that would need to be made before real unity with the Orthodox could be envisioned.

It's a "given" so to speak and as one Orthodox participant in ecumenical talks with Rome once indicated to me, "We need to see how seriously Rome wants to join with us rather than have us come under it."

Alex

Alex, I'm actually surprised you're asking this question.

A real qualitative difference is the Patriarch of Moscow doesn't claim jurisdiction outiside of the canonical boundaries of his own church. Another is that the Patriarch of Moscow sits as the head of a synod of bishops of his own church. The Pope governs the church through the Roman Curia which is a vastly different animal. It includes not only bishops of the Roman Pontiff's church, but Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of other churches. To me, this is a grave subversion of the role and nature of a Patriarch and shows how disparate the systems are.

Andrew

Just as an FYI...

I apologize for my lack of responses here. I am trying to wrap up a few things before I head out to Tokyo on Friday. Most of my responses will have to wait until I am in the land of the Rising Sun next week...and it is 3:00am and I cannot sleep...

God bless!

Gordo

I agree, because certainly some of the disagreements between East and West are merely semantical in nature, while others are more substantive, but even when the disagreement is real as opposed to apparent, it does not follow that dialogue is unimportant or impossible.

I don't think that was anything Gordo was claiming, if I read him correctly. But I am content to let him speak for himself on his return to the Forum.

I hope the Crack of the Rising Sun doesn't disturb his sleep too greatly. I have had the nasty jitters from extreme jet lag myself...and I don't like it.

Spokojnoj notchi, Gordo!

Alex,

The biggest difference concerns the synodal nature of the Church, which -- until quite recently -- was rejected by the Roman universalist ecclesiology due to its over reaction to the Conciliarist heresy. In other words, at the present time the Pope continues to govern his patriarchate without a synod, while the Patriarch of Moscow, like the Patriarch of Constantinople, governs within his synod.

No, the Patriarchs are not over the bishops within their synod, they are in communion with them, and they provide a necessary link within the chain of communion. Now, of course the Patriarchs have certain canonical functions within the synod, functions given to them by the Ecumenical Councils and the conciliar tradition, but nevertheless, no bishop is over any other bishop, because all bishops are ontologically equal through the grace of episcopacy.

Now, that being said, the article by Fr. Schmemann that I have been quoting from, which unequivocally rejects what he calls the heretical Roman claims in connection with the primacy (See Fr. Schmemann, "The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," pages 36-37), after making clear that the universalist ecclesiology of the pre-Vatican II Roman Church is unacceptable, concludes by criticizing the present practice of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Fr. Schmemann holds that the Orthodox Churches over-emphasize, in a way similar to Rome, the canonical tradition in isolation from the theological tradition of the Church. Thus, he is critical of the current practice of the Eastern Churches and holds that they too must restore fully the eucharistic ecclesiology of the ancient Church, because as he explains, the poison of the universalist ecclesiology ". . . is a permanent temptation because in fact in the last analysis it is a natural one, being the product of naturalization of Christianity, its adaptation to the life 'after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.'" [Schmemann, page 51]

Finally, it is my hope that the upcoming dialogue between East and West on the doctrine of the primacy will assist both Churches in reaffirming the proper balance between the canonical tradition and the divine nature of the Church as a Eucharistic reality, while also restoring the primacy to its proper place within the synodal structure of the Church.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Andrew and Todd and "all you Orthodox Christians!"

Yes, I understand that Patriarchs have their synods and govern their churches that way.

Popes (and I DO have some connections with the Vatican from the time of WYD 2002 ) also have various offices to deal with issues and it is VERY rare that a Pope makes any kind of a decision without advice or guidance from other people. "Synod" and "Congregation" - the difference in terms of actual organizational impact is very small. But I do appreciate the difference in theory.

The Pope has a universal outreach of primacy. I don't see how that can be heretical, given the whole notion of "Petrine Primacy." We may not like the universal jurisdiction of the Pope that he exercises today, but his primary Latin Church is quite large - something that the Ecumenical Councils could never have foreseen in their (hey)day.

In fact, it was the Pope of Alexandria who defined his own jurisdiction over every parish and priest in Christian Africa - it does not come from Rome to begin with.

Also, ecclesial theory aside, my point is that the Patriarch of Moscow is as bureaucratic and autocratic in the exercise of its authority as any Pope of Rome today.

The "how" of it truly is a kind of semantic, as I see it.

The ROC's bureaucracy and autocracy is quite impressive, from an organizational point of view. It is also quite "universal" in its own way. And it is growing by leaps and bounds in our times, in Russia and around the world.

Bureacracy is really a necessary thing for such a large organization to function. So is a good dose of autocracy. And there are those who are within the ROC who can tell you all kinds of events from their lives when they have felt the autocratic whip of their higher-ups and also how bishops can be corrected "in the communion of love and fraternal correction" of course!

The theory is very nice and even attractive.

But with respect to its implementation in Orthodoxy today - entirely without credibility.

By any other name, and however one wants to title the bureaucratic means, there is an autocratic episcopal function at work within BOTH Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Although one may not find it as pronounced in an autocephalous Orthodox Church like that of Mt Sinai . . .

As someone close to my own Orthodox community, I know a number of people who would laugh if they heard what you are saying by way of comparing Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

They laughed yesterday when I spoke to them about it.

So I (and they) will need a lot more convincing!

Until such time,

Viva il Papa!

Alex the Roman . . .

Alex, I�m always happy to supply fodder for the entertainment of others.

It may be that for the vast majority of time, and in many practical respects, the power that the Patriarchs of Rome and Moscow each wield is roughly similar. Perhaps it is quite possible that in some ways the level of autocracy, direct control and overall bureaucracy to be found is even greater in the Moscow Patriarchate. The direct power of the MP however ends at the canonical boundaries of his own church, which is where the similarity ends though. The MP is only the head of the synod that rules his own church. The Pope is the head of the Curia which ultimately governs all churches in communion with him, and makes all bishops of those churches subordinate both to him and sadly to the Curia (as has been pointed out by the Melkite Patriarch as a violation of Eastern tradition). That�s a fundamental and inescapable difference, and what the Pope possesses is not the power of primacy as you say, but supremacy.

Even if you say that the difference is not the nature of power held but the scope, it is clear we are not talking about semantic differences. The effects are most definitely born out in the life of the church, even if not readily apparent in its every day goings on.

Andrew

Starokatolyk,

I'm more worried about the giant ravens who pick up small children and carry them into the cracks of Mt. Fuji...at least that's the rumor!

Thanks and God bless!

Gordo