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

And thank you,Marduk, for your clarity. It's a sine qua non of any ecumenical dialogue. Cosi sia.

Any time, Marduk - and Happy Coptic New Year!!

I've have a red date in your honour!

Alex

I know that the authors of the Vatican I decree intended the use of the term "episcopal" to be a good thing, but - as it is with many Roman clarifications (e.g., the notion of the Father and Son being one principle in the procession of the Holy Spirit) - it merely adds to the problems, because from an Orthodox perspective it really means that there are two bishops in every diocese. Moreover, it also means that the bishop of Rome - seeing that his ordinary and immediate episcopal authority extends into every diocese - is a bishop of bishops, and that notion is completely unacceptable to the Orthodox.

The novel notion of "successorship" in the sense you describe is not found in the writings of the Church Fathers. The bishop of Rome holds the same office as every other bishop, and he is not the sole (or the unique) successor of St. Peter in the Church. Clearly, the Roman West and the Orthodox East view these matters differently, and that does not bode well for the restoration of communion. The historic successions of various Church founders is a pious tradition (and it has sometimes helped to indicate which sees should have a higher rank - although Ephesus lost out to Constantinople and so rank is really not determined by who founded a particular Church), but it has no ontological or sacramental significance. To put it another way, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, the three historic petrine sees that St. Gregory the Great describes as one see in three places, do not have ontological priority over any other episcopal sees. Nor do their historical claims equate to dogma or revealed truth. The primacy of Rome (or of Antioch and Alexandria for that matter) is not a divinely revealed dogma; instead, it is an historical development that came to be established through the ecumenical councils of the Church, and the same can be said of the Pentarchy.

That is an interesting personal interpretation of the document, but the document itself does not say that.

Moreover, I reject the notion that Rome is the "sole successor in the primacy" and in rejecting that notion I am merely siding with Pope St. Gregory who saw primacy invested in all three of the major historic petrine sees. Once again I am compelled to remind you of the fact that the primacy of Rome is not a divinely revealed truth nor is it a dogma; instead, it is a human custom that was established over time by the Churches in their ecumenical dealings with each other. The sooner Rome abandons the novel claims put forward at Vatican I and Vatican II the better.


Postscript: Mardukm's innovative interpretation of the decree Pastor Aeternus reminds me of his equally novel interpretations of St. John Chrysostom's text On the Priesthood where he saw the bishop of Rome, and his supposed headship, mentioned practically on every page - I exaggerate of course - but needless to say the bishop of Rome is not mentioned in that book.

Simply talking about some made up "Catholic jargon" that speaks about a proper as opposed to - I suppose - an improper episcopal jurisdiction, is not going to convince me that Vatican I represents the Orthodox understanding of episcopal authority.

I know the Roman Catholic bishops at Vatican I taught that the pope's ordinary immediate episcopal jurisdiction is a safeguard to the authority of the bishops in general, but that is simply not how the Orthodox understand episcopal authority. There is no bishop of bishops who safeguards the authority of the "lesser" bishops (n.b., the whole idea of there even being "lesser" bishops is contrary to the nature of the episcopal office in Orthodoxy). The episcopal office is one priesthood and all bishops possess the same ontological status, so there can be no bishop of bishops, nor can there be a bishop who has episcopal authority in every diocese in the world. In fact, such a notion for the Orthodox involves turning all the other bishops - except for the primate - into presbyters, while also making them (i.e., the bishops reduced to presbyters by a false notion of primacy) into the primate's vicars.


Postscript: The decree Pastor Aeternus describes the pope's primacy as a form of "proper jurisdiction" and so you are clearly wrong when you say that Catholic theologians restrict the term "proper" to the local ordinary.

Here is what Vatican I says: "Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema." [Pastor Aeternus, Chap. 1, no. 6]

In addition to Apotheoun's comments, I feel that I should point out that Marduk's statement here is not in line with Orthodox ecclesiology. There is no such thing as an auxiliary bishop of a see. Auxiliary bishops in Orthodoxy, just as in Roman Catholicism are given titular sees (sees with no flock attached to them). They may function as suffragans, but they are in fact fully fledged bishops who just happen to have no flock in their own diocese, and so they exercise their sacramental powers within another diocese (which according to the ancient principles of canon law can only be done under the direction of the bishop who has jurisdiction within that diocese). We in no way recognize that there can be two bishops within a see, because suffragans are not the bishops of the diocese where they serve, nor are they able to serve in that place without the direction and permission of the local ordinary. To wit, only one may exercise immediate jurisdiction within any place. All others who exercise jurisdiction there only do so mediately, with the consent of him who has immediate jurisdiction in that place.

What about the historic and traditional role of the chorepiscopoi (Χωρεπίσκοπος)? This has developed to no longer exist in the Latin or Byzantine Churches, but still exists in the Syriac Churches.

The chorepiscopoi, or "country bishops" were suppressed in most Churches from the fourth century onward because the proliferation of bishops, down to rural or village congregations, was degrading the dignity of the episcopal office. In the Byzantine East, the process was done by the fifth or sixth centuries; in the West, it remained until the 7th. In the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches, fell from Byzantine oversight from the 5th century onward, the office never quite ended, but it did evolve into something close to what the Latin Church calls "auxiliary bishops".

The Catholic Churches of the Syriac, Syro-Malankara, Chaldean, and Maronite have them to this day; as do the Orthodox Syriacs, Orthodox Malankara, and Assyrian Church of the East.

According to the Coptic Encyclopedia, the chorepiscopos is considered part of the clerical ranks (not episcopal), stating that in the Coptic Church, chorepiscopos is an honor which may be given to senior priests. It also mentions that chorepiscopoi may later be consecrated bishops in the event of vacancies in their own or other dioceses, which implies that they are not in fact bishops, since a bishop is never reconsecrated (something which would be sacrilege).

Dear Todd,

But do not Ecumenical Councils affirm what is Divinely-revealed Dogma?

If not, what is their purpose and role in the Church?

Alex

Dear Todd,

Did not the Pope of Alexandria have "immediate jurisdiction" over every bishop and church in Christian Africa?

In fact, he did.

In addition, are you saing the Moscow Patriarch is not a bishop who has jurisdiction over all the bishops under his omophorion?

Regardless of what the (very democratic-sounding) theory would say, Orthodox Patriarchates, like the Moscow Patriarchate, do indeed have a praxis very similar to that of the Pope of Rome.

The eccesiological theories aside, why don't we look at the concrete realities of how not only the papacy, but also a number of patriarchates in Orthodoxy are actually run.

And, please - until you become a full-fledged and true Orthodox Christian (which according to the canons of Orthodoxy means someone who is in actual communion with canonical, world-wide Orthodoxy) . . . you aren't going to convince me on the theory generated by books and articles.

As you know, I don't understand how someone with such a "bang on" understanding of Orthodox ecclesiology and Orthodoxy as a whole is prepared to live with a kind of indifferentism when it comes to being in actual communion with Orthodoxy (which ALONE defines a true Orthodox Christian).

That's an aside, but Orthodox Patriarchs do indeed "lord it over" their bishops. I've known several over the course of the last 30 years who could give you an earful!

So perhaps we should focus here on what a Petrine Primacy for the whole church could look like and of what benefit it would be to the Church.

Orthodox theologians like Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) never had an issue of a Petrine Primacy and affirmed such was exercised by the Pope of Rome in the first millennium.

What did he and others like him mean by that?

Alex

That is accurate for how this rank has developed in modern times. In the early Syriac Churches, the chorbishop was in fact a bishop in the non-metropolitan area. This is now an honorary title given to only married clergy in the two Orthodox Churches in India for clergy who have long served, and/or for exemplary work. Syro-Malankara Catholics also retain this honorary title for clergy, both married or unmarried as purely honorary. They are today the Syriac equivalent of "Monsignors" or "Mitred Archpriests".

However, this was not so in the early Syriac practice. They were a sort-of bishops with less rights than a metropolitan.

What evidence is there that chorepiscopoi were full-fleged bishops and not a type of elevated priest given the faculties to ordain?

I must say, that there seems to be rather good evidence to the contrary, that they were not considered to be full-fleged bishops, since chorepiscopoi are only ever mentioned in the canons as ordaining presbyters and deacons (never bishops), and since the churches which preserve them in modern practice do not consider them to be bishops. They are also mentioned in the canons as having their faculties to perform certain acts (most especially the ordinations of presbyters and deacons) being dependent upon the bishop, which would not be true if chorepiscopoi were considered to be a type of bishop.