www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Can one patriarch excommunicate another?

In the Orthodox Church, can one patriarch excommunicate another? And if so, on what principle?

Cyril of Alexandria excommunicated Nestorius of Constantinople, but it required an ecumenical council to make that excommunication universal throughout the Church. Basically, yes, one Patriarch can condemn another, but it has no force outside his Patriarchate, unless he can convince/browbeat/threaten others to follow suit. There is no longer a God-beloved Emperor to put political muscle behind any excommunication.

Thanks for the response, Stuart. I'm very much intrigued by it.

To each of your points:

1) The Nestorius case is probably one I should be better up to speed on, but am not at present. It sounds like it would be fair to say that it was the council that excommunicated Nestorius, not Cyril then? Or are there details I'm missing that would support the notion that Cyril's actions...how to word this...were "definitive" in some way, even if not "final", or "absolute"?

2) To your second sentence - could you clarify for me? Does it work much like a democracy? If one patriarch can get a majority of the others to share his sentiments, then the patriarch perceived as wayward is officially voted out of the Church?

3) And lastly, the idea that it takes a secular figure to take definitive action (at least in the absence of a consensus of patriarchs) within the confines of the Church is rather fascinating and a bit vexing to me at the same time. Was that really how it worked back when there was an emperor? If the emperor said or did it in regards to the Church, it was final?

1. Cyril took unilateral action. After all, he was Cyril. When not everybody toed his line, he insisted on a council. He then ensured that the Council saw things his way. Nestorius never stood a chance.

2. It's not a democracy, nor is it a monarchy; it's a communion.

3. The Emperor served as the focus of unity in the fifth century, because he saw his position as transcending both the secular and sacred realms. It wouldn't work today.

Yes, Cyril seems to have been quite the autocrat--wasn't he also involved in getting St. John Chrysostom deposed?


I certainly agree here, but ISTM that with the advent of Constantine, Mark 10:42-45 really took a beating:


Probably not, but right now it seems that *someone* is looking to take on that role.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

That was his uncle, who was also St. Cyril's predecessor in the see of Alexandria (though I do believe St. Cyril was present at the synod of the oak, but he would not have been as major of an influence as his uncle Theophilus). St. Cyril for some time though refused to restore St. John to the diptychs after his exoneration, and his own heavy-handed tactics during the Nestorian Controversy caused many to revile him as a 'second Theophilus'.

I agree with the gist of everything you say, brother Stuart, but with some important clarificiations:
(1) Pope St. Cyril did not excommunicate Nestorius before appealing the case to Pope St. Celestine first. St. Cyril wrote to the Pope of Rome: "We have not confidently abstained from Communion with him [Nestorius] before informing you of this. Condescend to unfold your judgment therefore so that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him..."
(2) Pope St. Celestine's judgment was that Nestorius should have 10 days to recant, after which he would be deposed. Pope St. Cyril accepted the judgment.
(3) Pope St. Celestine's judgment was sent to all the other bishops per Pope St. Cyril's request, and that should have settled the matter. However, there were many in the Church of Antioch and Constantinople who supported Nestorius. Hence, an Ecumenical Council was called.

Absolutist Petrine advocates tend to focus on the decision of Pope St. Celestine, and the notion that the subsequent Ecumenical Council simply affirmed his decision, thus assuming that the Council did not need to be called at all, except to bring the heterodox into line (i.e., those who were orthodox accepted Pope St. Celestine's decision already).
Low Petrine advocates tend to focus on the fact that an Ecumenical Council had to be called to ensure the peace of the Church, and neglect the fact that the orthodox decision of the Church was already made prior to the calling of the Council, thus assuming Pope St. Celestine's decision had no authority at all.
High Petrine advocates look at the whole matter as a clear example of the necessity of consensus between the head bishop and the rest of his brother bishops for the divine peace of the Church to be maintained - always together, never apart.

(I believe there is a very fine line between auctoritas and potestas as far as Church polity is concerned)

Blessings

Stuart,


And if one does condemn another but cannot get other patriarchs to follow suit...what practical impact does this have?

All,

I'm a little uncertain at the moment, given the totality of the responses above. Trying to synthesize everything that's been offered so far, is it the case that the force (the "total impact") of one patriarch excommunicating another is directly related to how many other patriarchs the first patriarch can get to join in and agree with him?

The idea that an ecumenical council would have to be called to make the excommunication "universal" - was that just a matter of numbers? In other words: ecumenical council means everyone is there; if everyone agrees at the council to excommunicate at the council, then everyone is on board, which inherently means its universal? Or, rather, is there a "special binding force" behind an ecumenical council that would allow, for example, a 5 vs. 2 vote in favor of excommunication to become a universal mandate by virtue of the majority sentiment expressed in an ecumenical council? Orrrr...??

Thanks for helping to clarify.

I can't help clarify it for you. You are trying too hard to rationalize the Mystery that is the Body of Christ, and how it has been indefectible through the ages. One thing is for sure. It is neither the Pope alone, nor the rest of the bishops apart from their head. God established a College of bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. That is the primary means by which God has preserved His Church. What more needs to be said?

Blessings

I suppose the answer to the question hangs largely upon the degree to which the lack of communion between East and West disturbs the individual follower of Christ.

If one does not care about this grievous chasm, then, really, nothing need be said at all. We can all move on with life as we've always known it and not even blink.

However, if we take the various exhortations of Scripture (and other sources) to complete unity in the Church seriously, because human beings are, in part, intellectual creatures, we must, in part, engage each other about the matter intellectually (to the extent, of course, that this is possible to do).

While on the one hand, the totality of the Christian mystery can, by its very nature, never hope to be defined or comprehended in its fullness, using human effort; on the other hand, the mystery has been defined in part, down through the ages, over the course of events such as ecumenical councils.

I am here to try to understand that collective, progressive definition from an eastern perspective, and appreciate the efforts of those who are willing to help me do so.

If a Patriarch attempts to excommunicate another Patriarch, it will not be valid until confirmed by the bishop of Rome (this was the purpose of the ancient Canons of Sardica, canons which were confirmed by subsequent Ecum Councils). All excommunications can only be done according to the approved Canons of the Church. The Pope of Rome nor any other Patriarch can excommunicate at their mere and sole discretion.

Which canon of Sardica grants such a privilege to the bishop of Rome?

On the assumption that the deposed bishop will appeal, it is the Pope of Rome's prerogative to reject the appeal (thereby confirming the deposition) or make provision for reconsidering the evidence in a new trial if the Pope of Rome feels it is justified. He also has the prerogative to send his own representatives as co-judges for the new trial.

Blessings