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

Since you mention theologians like Fr. Meyendorff, I should point out that in Orthodox Ecclesiology, for the primate to act as locus of the synod's power, and to act swiftly (when necessary) without first consulting the synod is perfectly acceptable (Fr. Alexander Schmemann argues this, if I remember). Where we draw the line, however, would be the assertion that the primate's decision is irreversible or not contingent upon the approval of the synod, for at that point, the primate would become a bishop of bishops, exercising immediate jurisdiction over the entire metropolis/patriarchate/archdiocese, and the bishops would be like unto him as priests are unto bishops, completely dependent upon him for their faculties and priesthood.

Indeed, but reality does intrude upon "models." I know that RCC apologists could point to the operation of the Moscow Patriarchate and, for lack of a better word,the external "imperium" of the Patriarch himself as being not particularly distinct from that of the Vatican and the Pope. Of course, there is a distinction in that the Patriarch does not claim or possess any final teaching authority over matters of Faith as we Orthodox view (and object to) the the Pope' s claimed role as defined by Rome's history and codified by Vatican I. Also, in a final "end game", any Orthodox Synod could, and has ,deposed more than a few primates and patriarchs of their national Church.

In simpler terms, while an Orthodox Primate or Patriarch may appear as a "mini pope", in the end, should push come to shove, he is but one Bishop in a synod of equal bishops. (At least in theory.)

Dear brother in Christ!

I'm not trying to be an apologist for anyone here (indeed, I would prefer if there were one (autocephalous, particular) Ukrainian Orthodox Church with its centre in Kyiv rather than the church jurisdictions, including the UGCC, that we have now).

Clearly, His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow respects the jurisdictions of the ROC bishops and metropolitans in communion with him.

At the same time, he is a powerful prelate whose word is law.

That's just the way it is. And that is just the way it should be.

The bishop's power is absolute, to be sure. At the same time, there seems to be a tendency here, with Todd, yourself and DMD, to suggest that somehow there isn't anyone higher in jurisdictional authority in Orthodoxy above the local bishop.

I don't pretend to understand the ecclesiologial intricacies involved here, but the fact remains that authority is authority, when and how it is exercised. The only Orthodox jurisdictions where the Patristic model/theory you are advancing/recalling here are very small jurisdictions.

But to say that Orthodox Metropolitans and Patriarchs, including Orthodox Archimandrites and Ihumens, exercise an authority that is somehow different in terms of its "iron fist in the velvet glove" approach from that of the RC hierarchy is tenuous at best!

It also turns a blind eye to the real authority that is currently exercised by RC national episcopal conferences where Rome prefers not to get involved in their local matters without being first invited.

There is an ongoing devolution of powers in the RC Church. And even the UGCC goes ahead and acts without Rome's approval (within the context, I suppose, that it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than for approval).

In short, when His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow acts, we can speculate all we want afterwards regarding synodal approbation, that he isn't acting as a bishop of bishops and the like.

I hope Todd becomes in actuality what he is in spirit - an Orthodox Christian. After that, once he is over his "convert phase" :), I hope he becomes ordained to the Priesthood and sees for himself what life is really like in the hierarchy.

Something tells me that he will find there is a distinct difference between theoria and praxis in ecclesiology!

Alex

Dear DMD,

Fair ball, sir!

But papal teaching authority, even in the ultra-montanist, imperious, Papalist Church is, theoretically, tied to affirming apostolic tradition, rather than inventing it (and there is a disagreement on that score too, as I am led to believe . . .).

Pope Pius XII did not proclaim the dogma of the bodily Assumption into heaven of the Most Holy Virgin Mary until he received responses from the world's Catholic bishops first (who responded well over 90% in favour of the proclamation).

There is no reason why, at a future union Council, if we get to that point ever, that Council cannot define "papal infallibility" as being tied to the decisions of an Ecumenical Council (only).

So when the pope, together with all other bishops, East, West, North and South, signs the decrees of a truly Ecumenical Council of the Church, which refers to the totality of the Bishops, then those decrees can be said to express the indefectible mind of the Church,, the Body of Christ which is led by the Holy Spirit.

And that Council could also affirm what the parameters are, jurisdictionally, for the Petrine Primacy as exercised by the Bishop of Rome, historically and within a future reunited Church.

I am UGC, but I'm open to a redefinition of papal primacy and agree, right now, with Archbishop Zoghby's affirmation in that regard (although that too illustrates a wide chasm between theory and actual praxis).

Not insurmountable, but tricky nonetheless.

Alex

All time BEST observation EVER on any Eastern Christian - Orhodox or Greek Catholic - forum regarding ecclesiology!

Alex: Regarding the power of Bishops, I shall paraphrase Orwell to clarify my understanding of the Bishop in Orthodoxy. " All Bishops are equal, but some (usually one in each Church) is more (much more) equal than the others."

This underscores why our academics are able to come to common ground on many matters regarding the Papacy and primacy...but the devil literally is in the details and within just what universal jurisdiction means.

Look, last summer, my new Orthodox Bishop, upon his election by our priests' conference (ironically as promised to our people under both Brest and Ungvar) was required to present himself to the EP, to affirm his loyalty to the Patriarchal see and to receive the ratification of his election. I'm not naive and I recognize that the same held true when the UGCC elected your current primate - except he didn't stop at the Dardenelles. However, not all ECC churches have the power and numbers to call their own shots. For example, if the clergy of the long vacant see of the Greek Catholic Eparchy of Passaic were to convene and elect a Bishop - well, we probably know how that would work out.

Dear DMD,

Thank you sir! You know, I've sometimes thought the Administrator should have some sort of an award for this kind of thing . . .

Alex

Dear DMD,

Your post reminds me of the time I went to my Bishop, Kyr Isidore Borecky (memory eternal!) to ask him if I could be a married priest . . .

He said, "You worry about your studies . . . and I'll worry about marrying you . . ."

As it turned out, I worried about both.

Alex

Dear brother Todd,

No, it does not mean that there is a "bishop of bishops." It means that there is "head bishop" with unique responsilibities and concurrent prereogatives to carry out those responsibilities. That's easily amenable to traditional Orthodox ecclesiology.

Really? I imagine that St. Irenaeus' list of successors for particular sees was just a strange and unique item in the history of the Church. Such lists can be discarded, according to your ecclesiology, and have no meaning because there is no such thing as unique successorship. So much for Tradition. The Low Petrine novelties seek to topple Traditional ecclesiology every bit as much as Absolutist Petrine ecclesiology.


Of course. I'll make sure to point out to my Copti Orthodox friends that the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church is really also the Patrairch of the Copts. I'll also point out to them that the Coptic Pope has no right to confirm his brother bishops because all bishops are absolutely equal in all ways. And why wait for the Holy Myron from the Patriarch? Forget it! That's just a novel system introduced by those interested in making one bishop ontologically different from other bishops. Etc. Etc. No distinction in office, gotcha.:)

No one here has said otherwise.

I recognize that Low Petrine and Absolutist Petrine advocates have little in common with Tradition. The two extremes will never meet and will always be a source of disunity for the Church as long as they exist.

Who said otherwise?

Agreed.

Primacy is a divinely revealed dogma. I agree that its particular phenotypes have been conditioned by God-directed history.

Personal interpretation? That is what the Decree on the Primacy exactly states ad dictum! Canon: Therefore, if anyone says that it is not according to the insitution of Christ our Lord Himself, that is, by divine law, that St. Peter has perpetual successors IN THE PRIMACY over the whole Church, or if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St. Peter IN THE SAME PRIMACY...

There is NOTHING there that states that the bishop of Rome is the only successor of St. Peter. It is the myopic reading of the Vatican decrees by detractors, on the one hand, and the extravagant reading of the same decrees by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators, on the other, with the concurrent popular misconceptions and bad impressions that these erroneous misinterpretations cause, that is the source of our division.
NOTE: I did not include the "Let him be anathema." in the citation above because the Eastern and Oriental Fathers, as well as several Western Fathers at Vatican 1, while agreeing with the content of the Canon, requested that an anathema should not be attached to it. I have hope that in a future Ecumenical Council, the anathema on that Canon, which is wholly orthodox in content, will be removed.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: If one reads the Canon on the Primacy fairly, one will realize that the document does not make the ROMAN primacy per se (as distinct from Primacy itself) part of divine revelation. In fact, the matter that is divinely revealed is in a separate clause than the statement on the Roman primacy. The only thing that the Council explicitly stated was divinely revealed - in the words "according to the testimony of the Gospel" in another place, and "according to the insitution of Christ" in the Canon itself - was the perpetual succession in the Primacy. The Canon does NOT include the ROMAN succession per se as part of the divinely revealed dogma. This fair and true reading will no doubt have important repercussions for ecumenical dialogue.

I think the mistake people often make is that they assume an anathema is what makes a teaching a dogma. This is false. An anathema is simply a disciplinary measure. The thing that makes a particular teaching a dogma is the explicit statement that the particular teaching is divinely revealed. Hence, while the IC and the Assumption are considered dogmas in the Catholic Church, neither of those were asserted with anathemas (hence, also my hope that a future Ecumenical Council will remove the anathemas from the above-cited Canon, in agreement with the request of the Eastern, Oriental, and Western Fathers at Vatican 1 who made that appeal).

One will notice that while the Decree on Primacy never actually states that the ROMAN succession is divinely revealed, this misinterpretation is in fact the basis for many complaints by detractors of the papacy (as evinced by brother Todd's own comments). This simply demonstrates what I have stated previously - the rejection of the Catholic dogmas are more often than not based on imposing notions on it that they do not actually teach.

There can only be one primate in any level of the hierarchy. Show us otherwise from Tradition. Does Alexandria have two or more head bishops? Does the Russian Church have more than one Patriarch? Does a Metropolitan See have more more than one Metropolitan head? Where can you go to find support for your novel claim?


There can only be one primate in any level of the hierarchy. That is the very definition of primacy. Though Pope St. Gregory asserted that the three Sees share a Petrine Succession and share the primacy in relation to the whole Church, within that special grouping, it cannot be doubted that Rome also has the primacy.

This statement merely demonstrates, again, that you are imposing notions on the Vatican 1 Decree that it does not contain. See above.

Rather, the sooner people stop reading the Vatican Decrees according to their unjustified misinterpretations, the sooner unity will occur.

All I remember is that you accused me of it, even though that was not what I did. My only purpose for bringing up St. John's text was to demonstrate the existence of Primacy in the Church, and that this primacy was/is inhereted from the model of the Apostles who had St. Peter as their head. You often do that, brother Todd - impose notions on the statements of others to pretend you have made an argument against that statement.

Can you please quote the exact text from Vatican 1 that states that other bishops are "lesser" bishops? I haven't seen it. Is this merely another example of your imposing notions on statements by others, notions that actually don't exist, in order to justify false arguments against those statements?

That's good, old Catholic ecclesiology.


True. You are in fact the only one here who has made the claim.


No bishop can have PROPER jurisdiction in every particular diocese in the world. But the care given by any bishop for a particular diocese, even if that care only comes about in extraordinary circumstances, is episcopal by its very nature. THAT is wholly orthodox and patristic, contrary to your claim. In fact, I recall an ancient Canon of Antioch that states a Metropolitan must care for the whole flock in his Metropolitan See. According to your interpretation, this means either that there are two bishops in each diocese within a Metropolitan See, or that the Metropolitan is the only true bishop and the rest of the bishops are mere priests. Your understanding is unduly polemic and plainly wrong, brother Todd.

Only according to your own understanding (and others who think like you, naturally), not according to patristic Tradition. The existence of a Patriarch who has real jurisdiction in his entire Patriarchal See does not make his brother bishops in the Patriarchate mere priests. The existence of a Metropolitan who has real jurisdiction in his entire Metropolitan See does not make his brother bishops in the Metropolitan See mere priests. Conclusively, there is no justification for claiming that the existence of a head bishop who has real jurisdiction in the entire Church makes his brother bishops mere priests. You really have no valid rationale for your claim, least of all on the basis of Traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. But your Low Petrine ecclesiology is not really Traditional Orthodox ecclesiology, is it, but is only an extreme reaction to the Absolutst Petrine excesses, as novel as the claims of those exaggerators?

That's another misreading of the text. I actually debated this text with an Absolutist Petrine advocate a few years ago back at CAF (as already often stated, Low Petrine and Absolutist Petrine advocates share the same exact premises about the papacy, though at cross-purposes). The Absolutist Petrine advocate attempted to use this excerpt to try to prove that the Pope has proper jurisdiction in every particular diocese in the Church. I pointed out to him that he made the mistake of presuming that "proper jurisdiction" (i.e., normative and regular rule) only refers to the local diocese. In fact, head bishops, unlike other bishops, uniquely have a proper authority in TWO spheres of jurisdiction (recall that having a unique prerogative does not mean one is separated from the body of bishops) - namely, (1) in what pertains to his own particular diocese, and (2) in what pertains to the entire jurisdiction of whom he is head. Hence, for example, a Metropolitan has proper jurisdiction (1) in what pertains to his own particular diocese, and (2) in what pertains to the ENTIRE Metropolitan See. However, he does not have proper jurisdicton in any other particular diocese. I pointed out to him that the excerpt (which you quote above) is very plainly referring to the "whole Church." Just as the Metropolitan has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the whole Metropolitan See, and the Patriarch has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the whole Patriarchal See, then the Pope of Rome has proper jurisdiction in what pertains to the whole Church --- HOWEVER, this does not mean that any of those head bishops has proper jurisdiction in any other particular diocese (except his own). The Absolutist Petrine advocate responded with silence. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this proper (no pun intended) understanding of that excerpt from V1.

One thing this discussion has made starkly obvious to me is that Low Petrine advocates do not have a very good appreciation for the patristic Tradition on primacy. The Catholic Church, along with High Petrine advocates (from both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Communions), on the other hand, adhere to the patristic principle that primacy is an INHERENT feature of the episcopal order (this has been reflected in past Eastern Orthodox-Catholic colloquies, and is reflected in the ecclesiological reality of the Oriental Orthodox). That there is a bishop who holds a primacy, a primacy that comes with unique responsibilities, and unique prerogatives in order to uphold those unique responsbilities, by no means demeans their ontological equality. But Low Petrine advocates, for a reason I cannot fathom, consistenly interpret (or, rather, misinterpret) primacy in the most horrendous terms. Merely having unique prerogatives, to a Low Petrine advocate, is translated as absolute power that makes the bishop having those unique prerogatives somehow a "bishop of bishops" that must be rejected. That High Petrine advocates say that there is a bishop who can have care for the flock in a greater sphere of jurisdcition is automatically transalated as having "two bishops in a diocese" or that every other bishop is a mere priest in relation to their primate. Never mind that these same ecclesiological realities exist and have existed in the Orthodox Church from the very beginning. But that really only serves to demonstrate the novelty of the Low Petrine position, as dangerously inimical to Church unity as the excesses of their Absolutist Petrine counterparts on the other end of the ecclesiological spectrum.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Cavaradossi,
It seems that I as a Catholic, and you as an Orthodox, have the same understanding of what an auxiliary bishop is. My main point was that more than one bishop can serve a certain diocese - it is just that, there can only be one who has (in Catholic jargon) PROPER jurisdiction in the diocese, or (in Orthodox jargon) there can be only one who has ORDINARY jurisdiciton in the diocese (i.e., there can only be one bishop who has the normative and regular rule of the diocese). My statement (or least its intent) is perfectly in line with Orthodox ecclesiology - we just don't use the same language to describe it.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear brother Alex,

I am not certain I agree with it 100%, for the plain and simple fact that an Ecumenical Council normally deprives a local Church of its bishop for who knows what period of time. I am more inclined to agree with the idea that a college can act as a college, even when dispersed throughout the world. An infallible decree, if it is truly needed by the Church (not on the mere say-so of the Pope) should be able to be pronounced by the Pope even when the college is dispersed and cannot formally meet together for whatever reason. Comments?

On the idea of the collegial act, I would like to make an observation about Bishop Gasser's official Relatio. In one place (which I quoted in a previous post), he states that the Pope should approach the bishops as the normative means of aid if an issue comes to his attention that is really difficult. The utter irony of this is that Bishop Gasser simultaneously asserted that the Pope has the same resources as every other bishop, and that the bishops come to the Pope for help if there is an issue that they cannot handle. So whatever issue the bishops take to the Pope that activates (so to speak) an exercise of the Church's infallibility by the Pope would ALWAYS be an issue of such difficulty that the Pope would have to have recourse to the bishops for their aid. It seems Bishop Gasser was laying the groundwork for the idea that every ex cathedra decree is collegial by its very nature.

I think more important is a whole paradigm shift on what "jurisdiction" means. "Jurisdiction" has traditionally, even among the Orthodox, been defined as a form of control, instead of a form of service. Our past two Popes (including the current one, no doubt), have consistently highlighted the need for redefining "jurisdiction" in terms of the biblical model proposed by our Master, Jesus Christ - i.e., as one who seeks to serve instead of lording it over others.

I recall reading from many non-Latin sources (and even some Latin ones) the observation (or complaint) that the prescriptions of V2 have not yet been fully put into practice as far as ecclesiology is concerned. At the very least, our hierarchs recognize that at least the doctrinal groundwork for a truly collegial working atmosphere (so to speak) does exist.

Blessings,
Marduk

Does anyone know:
Whatever happened regarding that issue in the Eastern Orthodox Church of some Metropolitan making all his suffragan bishops auxiliary bishops? I think it happened in the U.S.? Is that still de facto the case in that jurisdiction, or was that Metropolitan ever corrected?

There are fears that such things could happen in the Catholic Church because of the Pope's (supposed) absolute power. Ironically, it has never happened in the Catholic Church, but it has happened in the Eastern Orthodox Church(?)(I'm not certain of the full details of that incident, which is why I put a (?) after my statement).

Blessings,
Marduk

I disagree. There can only be one with jurisdiction in one place. Anybody else who exercises any power within that area does so mediately, through the authority of him who has jurisdiction in that place.

This has already been discussed. The synod of Antioch made the novel decision to turn its bishops into suffragans of the metropolitans, an ecclesiological monstrosity and aberration. But the synod still adheres to the proper principle that in one place, there can only be one with jurisdiction. The metropolitans have now jurisdiction over all of their respective metropolises, while the suffragans are only able to exercise their power and ministry through the jurisdiction of the metropolitan.


No irony here, because the synod of Antioch, as aberrant as its ecclesiological move (only performed four years ago) may have been, did not establish a single bishop of bishops, but made it so that only the metropolitans of the synod of Antioch are bishops with any immediate jurisdiction—nor, it is worth pointing out, did it affirm that the metropolitans could have extraordinary immediate jurisdiction over their respective metropolises while the bishops simultaneously retain immediate jurisdiction over their respective dioceses; they correctly perceived that this is an either-or scenario, and accordingly turned the bishops into suffragans of the metropolitan.

Contrast this with the system in the Roman Church, where the Pope is the only one with universal, extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction. He can install, transfer, or depose any bishop at his good pleasure, and effect actions in any place without the consent of the local ordinary (think of Summorum Pontificum, for example, which was an exercise of the Pope's extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction). He is in effect, the only proper bishop in the world, a bishop of bishops who alone exercises true immediate jurisdiction in any place, while the other bishops can exercise jurisdiction in a place only as far as he allows them to do so. Just as with the case of the Synod of Antioch's shameful decision, we simple-minded Orthodox simply see things for what they are, and the truth of the matter is that from our own perspective the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church is both in potentiality and also in actuality (that is, whenever he elects to use his extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction to transfer, install, or depose a bishop, or to effect changes in a place, as was done with Summorum Pontificum) a bishop of bishops, who relates to all of the bishops in the world as bishop does to his auxiliaries, no matter what neat and convoluted distinctions are drawn up between ordinary and immediate, and extraordinary and immediate jurisdiction.