www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Dialogue and Faith

Why? Shouldn't any normative right rest in the local eparch alone as final? If not, how is the "dual bishop problem" prevented?

That's Greek, what of the Syriac, Copt, Armenian, Assyrian, Indian, Ethiopian, etc.? Will all agree to the Hellenistic/Melkite usage as the norm, and is it truly the norm - or another byzantinization being imposed? The disputedly autocephalous Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church still commemorates the Patriarch of the Syriac Orthodox Church in its Diptychs (Thubdens), as does it's patriarchically recognized Malankara Syrian Orthodox counterpart.

That question strikes me as a bit nonsensical. The right of episcopal confirmation obviously cannot lie with the local diocesan bishop, because the confirmation of candidates for the episcopacy is only necessary when the see of the local diocesan bishop is empty. How could an empty see without a bishop confirm the election of its own candidate for bishop? The right of episcopal confirmation actually resides properly with the synod as a whole (were this not true, the synod would never be able to confirm the election of a new protos, that is a new head bishop) but it is exercised in a principal way by the protos according to Apostolic Canon 34/35 and the canons of Nicaea, because decisions can be made neither without the consent of the head nor of the body, meaning that the head wields a considerably greater amount of clout than any bishop within the body. Anyway, the unique position of the protos as a center of unity (primarily exercised in the act of confirming episcopal elections) within an autocephalous church is the reason why the head of such a church may (but not must) be commemorated during the liturgy.


But for you to draw the theological conclusions which you are attempting to draw up (that the commemoration of a patriarch during the liturgy proves that he is some sort of super bishop with immediate jurisdiction within his entire patriarchate) would actually be for you to do exactly what you accuse me of doing. Because if this were true, then the Rum/Melkite (I refuse to call it Greek, since this tradition is certainly not limited to ethnic Greeks) tradition would clearly be defective according to your logic, since it does not commemorate the super bishop with immediate jurisdiction over the patriarchate (after all, either I am correct in my assessment that the protos does not necessarily need to be commemorated, or the Rum/Melkite tradition is defective because the protos does necessarily need to be commemorated). It is in fact somewhat dismaying to me that your attitude towards the Rum/Melkite tradition is so dismissive, as if it should be inadmissible for the discussion at hand. My understanding instead shows that there is one underlying framework which explains both practices, thus avoiding being dismissive of either practice, something which your own framework ironically falls into doing.

Primacy in the earliest period of ecclesiastical history began with the local Church, i.e., it began with the bishop holding primacy within the presbyteral council, and only later did regional primacies arise among the bishops of the local Churches in different regions. Later still ecumenical primacies arose through the actions of the ecumenical councils and the establishment of the pentarchy.

As far as commemorations are concerned, parish priests should only commemorate their own bishop. Bishops of course can commemorate the bishops that they are in communion with, and later this developed into the local bishops commemorating the metropolitans, and later still the metropolitans commemorating the patriarch. Patriarchs, after the establishment of the patriarchal system, commemorate each other, and that practice continues to this day in the Orthodox world.


Postscript: None of the primacies mentioned above, except for the primacy of the local bishop, i.e., the primacy of a bishop within the presbyteral council of the local Church, are original. Regional and ecumenical primacies arose only as the bishops of the local Churches began meeting in synods, which began some time in the third century. In other words, regional and ecumenical primacies arose out of local primacy, and not the other way around.

Dear Todd,

But does not the Moscow Patriarchate act very much like the papacy? Do not ROC and ROCOR priests commemorate the Patriarch four times during the Liturgy?

Alex

As Todd points out, until the 3rd Cent, they didn't need confirmation from any outside.
As Todd pointed out regarding "universality", I don't see any such practice in the Bible. Did Paul go to Peter to ask confirmation for Timothy's ordination? Anything like this before the Councils? Seems the having of Councils invites a 'universal' ecclesiology, sometimes inadvertently diminishing the local Church.

I don't think I've made such a conclusion. I don't believe super-bishops exist, except maybe in function. The Pope, as far as I'm concerned, is no superbishop - not in function nor practice.

I don't think it's a matter of defect, each Tradition has its practices. The Syriac Orthodox in India commemorate the Patriarch at each Liturgy, despite their own Catholicos and local eparch; Malankara Syrian Catholics commemorate the Pope as well as Catholicos, and local eparch at each Liturgy. The Malankara Orthodox, although excommunicated by and claiming independence from the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, still commemorate him in the Liturgy with their Catholicos and local eparch.

What attitude? I'm contrasting your opinion of Byzantine use with Oriental, as it overlaps with Roman - I keep seeing statements that Rome does this, that and the other thing wrong because it doesn't exactly correspond to the Byzantine use, well the Oriental use doesn't correspond exactly with Byzantine either.

My framework doesn't promote one practice or the other. It treats both as local Tradition, which has now become bigger than local. I say, let each Church do as its Tradition has organically developed. Orientals, in general, have very high view of the Protos - whether the Catholicos, the Patriarch, or the Pope. The emphasis is different than the stated Byzantine/Rum/Melkite practice, where usually the Synod is considered equal to or greater than the Protos (Although we all know of exceptions, even among the EO and Melkites/Greeks/Byzantines).

Sure they did. A candidate for bishop still needed to obtain his ordination from another bishop (or according to the ancient custom, three bishops). The process of a synod and protos confirming the election of a certain candidate is an extension of ths process, since it was set down by the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that no ordinations were to take place without the approval of the protos of each region. Both practices are directed towards the same end, which is preventing the ordination of episcopi vagantes, and preventing disorder and schism.


That is kind of the point which we both are trying to make. These things were established as matters of ecclesiastical law for good order. The Apostles, being spiritual men were themselves beyond the need for such laws, for as St. Paul teaches, "But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." But if this is so, then it means that Rome's claim to a primacy by divine right cannot be true.


That conclusion is necessary, in my opinion, because if the head were superior to the synod, then the synod could never have the right to confirm the election of a new protos.

I have never heard of that. I have been to ROCOR liturgies in San Francisco and I do not remember hearing commemorations of Patriarch Kirill. Perhaps it depends upon the celebrant. That said, I have watched Moscow Patriarchate liturgies on Youtube where Patriarch Kirill commemorates all the hierarchs of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches (including Metropolitan Tikhon of the OCA).

Some years ago I remember reading - on the Orthodox England [orthodoxengland.org.uk] website - an answer to a question about whether ROCOR parishes would need to commemorate then Patriarch Alexis during the divine liturgy if ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) reunited, and the answer was basically that the priest would do as directed by his bishop, but that the MP parishes in England at that time were not commemorating the Patriarch, and so he doubted that the ROCOR parishes would adopt such an innovative practice.

I do not believe that I said that in any of my posts. All I said is that the structure of regional episcopal synodal meetings arose over time. Confirmation of episcopal election, i.e., prior to the institution of formal episcopal synods, came through the act of consecration itself, an act that required bishops from the neighboring Churches to come and consecrate the newly elected man as a fellow bishop. The local Church would obviously elect its own bishop, and episcopal confirmation would be signified by the neighboring bishops coming to consecrate him in his office.

I agree.

From my perspective Michael_Thoma is simply reading later practices into earlier times, i.e., practices that arose as the Church grew and regional councils, and later ecumenical councils, established canons to help govern the working of the communion of Churches for good order.

The ROCOR parish I've been to commemorates the patriarch, the metropolitan, and the bishop. This practice, however, makes sense when one conceives of primacy in the capacity of confirmation of candidates for the episcopacy and other governing decisions, since even within an autonomous church, the candidate to be the new primate of that church requires the approval of the head of the autocephalous church of which it is a part (otherwise the autonomous church would itself be by definition autocephalous). I say that the autonomous church is a part of the autocephalous church here, of course, not in an ontological sense, but in the sense of the laws which order the governance of the Church.

That being said, I am more fond of the practice of the Rum/Melkites which I believe to be the earlier practice.

Which is why Vatican I was utterly useless and unnecessary, seeing that it tried to turn the bishop of Rome into a bishop of bishops and a universal pastor. In fact, the authority of the bishop of Rome is not a matter that can be dogmatized; instead, the authority of the pope within - but not over - the communion of Churches is something that arose over time for the good ordering of the Churches. One thing is clear, and that is that the bishop of Rome is a bishop like any other, or - to put it another way - his priesthood cannot be said to be historically, sacramentally, or ontologically greater than that of any other bishop.

I have only experienced that at hierarchical liturgies. It seems odd to me that a parish priest would do that, but I do not doubt your word on what you have experienced.

The following was written before the Act of Canonical Communion was signed between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, so perhaps the Council of Bishops decided to have the patriarch commemorated during the liturgy since this was written:

Orthodox England [orthodoxengland.org.uk]

Fr. Andrew's answer conforms to ancient practice, but he does indicate that he will be bound by the decision of the Council of Bishops should it be different than his stated answer.

It is both odd and superfluous, since while the priest receives his faculties from the bishop, the bishop does not receive his faculties from the metropolitan or patriarch, except for the fact that canonically, he cannot break union with them without facing deposition, except if they should publicly teach heresy (and ths is a matter pertaining to law for good governance and order, not one pertaining to ontology, unlike the relationship of the priest to the bishop).

Perhaps it is optional, as you said earlier? Certainly, only commemorating the bishop is sufficient, and I do not doubt your own experiences with ROCOR.