www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Deposing of Patriarchs

Dear Friends,

I hope you can help me with something.

In recent days, some have noted that the Latin Church has no way of deposing a Pope; only the Pope can resign from his office, and no one can force him out of it.

But is there such a thing in the East (both Catholic and Orthodox)?

Or is there precedent for deposing of Patriarchs?

And I suppose I should clarify what I mean. I don't mean the deposing of Patriarchs because they preach heresy or committed some breach of policy. I mean deposing Patriarchs on the basis of a medical condition (such as bipolar disorder) or something like that.

I bring this up because I am trying to see if the deposition of the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch Abdul Messiah of Antioch (deposed because of bipolar disorder, so I've heard, and alcoholism) has any basis in either Church canons or other historical precedent, or if Patriarchs cannot be deposed for any reason other than heresy or something serious like that.

Based on whether the deposition in question (because of a medical condition) has a basis in canons or other precedent, I hope to be better informed about the current ecclesiastical situation in India. Looooong story.

Thanks for your help.

A "Patriarch" is an honorary title given to the president of the synod of that See. A patriarch is basically nothing more than an archbishop.

An Archbishop is nothing more than a bishop who speaks for all the bishops of the synod.

A Patriatch, Archbishop, Metropolitan, ect. are all bishops.

So, while I don't think any synod would want to depose of their spokesman for health reasons, I see nothing preventing them from deposing him for heresy.

Thanks, OOD, for your reply.


As far as I'm concerned, it's a given that any bishop can be deposed for heresy.

My main question is really related to the health issue, though.

I don't know why a Synod would want to depose of its patriarch for health reasons, but apparently the Synod in question did just that. I didn't think it was possible to depose of someone for health reasons. But in this case it was done.

What I'm looking for is canons/precedent/whatever that would allow such a thing to happen. I've never heard of it, so I was wondering if anyone out there had.

If the patriarch in question was deposed for health reasons when it had no authority or right or whatever to do so, then one could make the case that he was unjustly stripped of whatever power he had as patriarch, and thus was still patriarch.

If you don't know anything about Indian Church history in the past 150 or so years, I won't bore you. But if you do, then you will know that the status of this patriarch is crucial in determining whether the Catholicosate he established in Malankara was canonical from the get go or not.

Of course, we are talking about non-Chalcedonians here, so you see why they're not too easy to deal with. :p

Mor Ephrem,

I could see a bishop being deposed for alcoholism; I could not see a bishop being deposed for a heart condition. They are entirely different.

A synod is the highest ruling authority outside of an Ecumenical Synod. Therefore, a synod could do just about anything. Of course if they are a true synod of Christ, they will almost certainly do what is best.

Ultimatley, it is very difficult for anyone else to fully understand an action by a synod in a case involving an individual. We almost certainly do not have all of the information (ie. some information may have been withheld as to not scandalize the flock).

IMHO

Reagrding the Indians, I sent away to India about a year ago for some Malankar history books knowing they would basically be their version of church history. Quite hard to find let me assure you. Although I have yet to read them, they look very intersting.

I will look to see if there is any precedent for deposing a bishop for health reasons, but I suspect that it would be such a rare find as to make it useless as a precedent.

[ 08-17-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OOD,

Thank you very much for your help, and keeping an eye out for what I'm looking for.

Getting any books about Indian Church history in English is hard to do. We're only now starting to translate the Liturgical books other than the Divine Liturgy into English in a form that can be chanted. So there's still a lot of work to do, and history isn't really on anyone's list of priorities. I'm lucky I know how to read the language, so it's not terribly difficult...I just need a dictionary for the bigger words. At any rate, thanks again, and I hope you're enjoying our history...it's rather colourful.

Dear Mor Ephrem,

Well, as OOD implied, it's just YOUR version of it, not the true Greek version!

To "depose" a Patriarch would almost always involve an infraction of a canonical or moral order.

In the Roman Church, as you know, Pope Honorius was found guilty of heresy in the Monothelite controversy and his successors, until the 12th century were required to repeat an anathema against him. This was later quietly dropped.

Another show of "disfavour" against a Pope in the West was the case of Pope Liberius. He is honoured as a saint in the East, but not in the West, the first Pope not to be included in the Roman Canon of Saints since the time of Sts. Peter and Paul.

Pope Celestine was actually exhumed and his corpse was excommunicated by his powerful enemies, a chapter of Roman church history that is best overlooked.

Roman church law is emphatic in saying that when a Pope falls into heresy that is acknowledged by the Church, he ceases to be Pope from that moment on.

Healthwise, a Pope ceases to be such when he can no longer exercise his ministerial role.

The current Pope suffers from a number of ailments. I saw his hand shake when I stood near him and he moved with what I thought was not a little pain.

Yet, he smiles and his face shows that he is happy and content. People help move him around and he often stops to ask them to leave him be as he can walk by himself! I saw him point sharply with his index finger to the ground twice and I didn't know what he was trying to say.

Apparently, he was telling his attendant to bring his cane to him. I thought he was being stern with me!

Just some reflections, I know I haven't answered your question . . .

Alex