www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Communion of Churches

I made the following comment in another thread;

Brendan answered back;

So here is what I meant.

Don�t the Churches in Communion with Rome view this communion a bit differently than the Churches of the Orthodox Communion?

What with Vatican I and Papal Infallibility.

The fact that, even though some Churches pick a new bishop for North American he doesn't become bishop until he is appointed by Rome.

Does that happen with the Orthodox? The Byzantine Catholic Church had to wait almost a year, or was it a year, for Rome to appoint our Metropolitan and the Eparch of Van Nuys waited over a year for a new bishop...

Would this happen with the OCA? Does Constantinople appoint its bishops and metropolitan?

This is what I meant when I said that "communion of churches" means something different.

Also look at ROCOR, they are in communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church and though that communion they are in communion with all Orthodox. You can not find a similar situation in the Churches in Communion with Rome.

Please correct me if I am wrong in any way here.

David

David --

Thanks for creating a new thread on this interesting topic.

"The fact that, even though some Churches pick a new bishop of North American he doesn't become bishop until he is appointed by Rome.

Does that happen with the Orthodox?"

Yes and no. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese works this way, more or less, with Constantinople being actively engaged in the selection of Bishops and particularly in the selection of the Archbishop. This is not without controversy in some circles of the GOA (perhaps Alice can add some commentary here?). I'm not certain regarding the involvement of Constantinople in the selection of the Bishop for other jurisdictions that are "under" the EP, like the ACROD ... does anyone know how that works?

OCA is a special case because it considers itself to be "autocephalous", even though only a handful of other churches of the Orthodox communion recognize that status.

"Also look at ROCOR, they are in communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church and though that communion they are in communion with all Orthodox. You can not find a similar situation in the Churches in Communion with Rome."

Okay, this is true. ROCOR doesn't view it this way, but I respectfully disagree with that view.

I would say that "communion" from the Orthodox perspective involves the double bond of faith and sacrament. It doesn't imply administrative unity (or even administrative order!), and is really a separate concept from that. The fact that almost noone else (other than the Russians, Georgians and Bulgarians) recognizes the autocephalous administrative status of OCA but yet none of these view this administrative disagreement to be a barrier to full communion is illustrative of this. I personally think that we Orthodox should spend more time tidying our administrative house because it may help the churches of the Orthodox communion function more efficiently ... but the administrative chaos of the churches of the Orthodox communion really isn't seen by Orthodox Christians as impacting communion as such.

I think that the churches of the Catholic communion may view this differently, perhaps even to the point that certain administrative structures are a prerequisite of a sort for full communion. In other words, communion with the Bishop of Rome -- which seems, to me at least, to be the sine qua non of being a member church of the Catholic communion -- requires acceptance of certain administrative structures relating to the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the other member churches of the Catholic communion. I suppose that one could cast this as well as a bond of faith and sacrament, because the administrative arrangements between the churches of the Catholic communion have been made a matter of dogmatic faith -- to a certain degree -- by the churches of the Catholic communion. So perhaps a more accurate description would be that the churches of the Catholic communion are held together by the double bond of faith and sacrament, but that the "content" of that "faith" includes certain administrative arrangements relating to the relationship between the Bishop of Rome and the other churches of the Catholic communion.

I'd be interested to hear what others think about this.

Brendan

There's another very important point that must be added here. The situation in the West (US, Canada, South America, etc...) is not normative Orthodoxy practice. This is a terribly crucial point. We cannot look at the Orthodox jurisdictional mess in the US and Canada and say, "you see, this is how the Orthodox do this and that..." Everyone acknowledges, to one degree or another, that overlapping jurisdictions are wrong, uncanonical, and unOrthodox, but everyone also acknowledges that they are a product of the history that we live in.

In the case of America, it is true the the various jurisdictions must look to their mother church for episcopal appointments. But set aside geographical separation for a moment, and you'll see that the ancient Orthodox practice, and the modern Catholic practice are worlds apart. In Catholicism, every episcopal appointment goes back to Rome. In Orthodoxy, all episcopal appointments are handled by the local Church's Holy Synod.

By many counts, there are 15 Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, when you include the OCA. (Let's not argue the point here.)

The Greeks in this country are a member of the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople, and that is who decides episcopal appoinments for them. That is their local Church.

The Serbians in this country are a member of the Holy Synod of the Church of Serbia and that is who decides episcopal appointments for them. That is their local Church.

For instance, in Russia, there is one national Orthodox Church - the Church of Russia, and there is one Holy Synod. This is the ancient model and this is the Orthodox model.

It is always the "Local Church" which decides episcopal appointments, and no other national Orthodox Church has to check with Constantinople for squat. The role of the "first among equals" in Orthodoxy, as it was in the early church, is to lead meetings of all churches, and mediate disputes among the churches. This is far different from modern Catholicism where every particular Church in Catholicsm must check with Rome for most important decisions.

(Again, understand that the situation in the US is highly unusual, wrong, and we pray, temporary.)

I also want to reiterate what Brendan said above for clarity's sake, and even be a little more plain about it. Communion in Orthodoxy is based on faith (this is exactly why Orthodox Christians are not in communion with Rome). The various schisms within Orthodoxy (Catholicism also has schismatic churches, SSPX, PNC, etc...) are not necessarily simply administrative, at least from the perspective of those who are breaking communion - that is, ROCOR broke commuion with most of the Orthodox world because they see it as being soft on ecumenism (which is not accurate) and they see this as a matter of faith. Old Calendarists break communion with Churches who accept the new calendar because they see it as a matter of faith (which is not accurate). The bottom line is that faith is the underlying principle for communion in Orthodoxy.

I hope this clarifies the Orthodoxy polity.

Priest Thomas

Dear Brendan,

The administrative structures aren't written in stone and they vary for different Eastern Churches.

Patriarchal Eastern Catholic Churches have the greatest degree of autonomy and can and do appoint their own bishops without Rome's "blessing."

Many Ukrainian Catholics view Rome's Oriental Congregation as an anachronism that should be assigned other duties as soon as possible - it should have nothing to do with the Eastern Churches.

And they view Rome's continuing refusal to recognize our Patriarchate as something related to "politics" rather than "sacraments" .

The only structure we really hold to is our Patriarchate and our ability to run our own internal affairs by ourselves.

Rome can do what it likes with as many bureaucrats as it likes (we can always send Rome an extra bishop or two that we feel is misbehaving in our Church and that has certainly happened before - there's always a need for good episcopal clerks and secretaries!).

At least we can find some use for Vatican bureaucracy after all . . .

Alex

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas!

Yes, and this is why Eastern Catholics regard the need to check with Rome over episcopal appointments as an anomaly.

RC's with their world-wide diocese headed by the Bishop of Rome do indeed get their bishops' marching orders from J2P2.

That is, after all, THEIR local Church.

And that is why Eastern Catholics object to having their matters interfered with by a bunch of Latin locals . . .

Alex

May the Lord God bless you!

Well , however, the priniciple is much different in the ancient Orthodox model. The local Church is always based on geography, always. So the Roman jurisdiction over the entire world of Roman Catholicism (and most of the other Catholic rites!) just underscores the problem perceived.

PT

Alex --

Just to clarify --- isn't it the case under the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches that even a Patriarchal Church must have a list of episcopal candidates "pre-vetted" by Rome so that when, for example, the Melkite Synod replaces a Bishop, it is doing so from a list of candiates that Rome has already tacitly approved?

Also, aren't there different arrangements for Bishops located in countries outside the territorial homelands of the Eastern Churches of the Catholic communion? I seem to recall that the Melkite Bishop in the USA is directly appointed by Rome and not by Damascus. Is this how the Ukranians are handled in North America?

Brendan

XB!

Just to illustrate these points, here is a link [oca.org] to last year's Enthronement of Metropolitan HERMAN of the OCA. You will see that there are representatives there participating and congratulating him from the Orthodox Churches of the world, including the ancient patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria. A representative of the MP was of course present. Constantinople also had a representative. The other Slavic churches and other churches were also present via representatives.

While this matter of "dispute" over how autocephaly was granted seems to still remain in some sectors, de facto it seems to be a non-issue.

Tony

Father Thomas:

I am intrigued by your phrase "ancient Orthodox model". Are you making making a distinction relative to the current, anomalous American practice, or also the anomalous practices that have been traditional, arguably since Chalcedon but certainly for the last 500 years.

http://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0212E&L=orthodox&P=R5083&I=-3

During the last millenium, the super-jurisdictional, supreme exercise of power by the EP has been of breath-taking proportions as compared to the ostensibly schism-justifying "Papal supremacy". The concerns voiced over Rome's final approval, or even simple announcements of hierarchical appointments, though not entirely misplaced, seem to me to be the swatting of gnats in comparison to traditional Orthodox practices.

Have Orthodox concerns over Papal supremacy during the period of schism been ever been tempered by honest reflection of their actual, traditional ecclesiology?

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

Yes, the RC Church sees itself as one big Diocese with the Pope as the Bishop. The Diocese has gotten rather large over the years . . .

But I see it as being similar to your comparison with the Serbian and Greek Orthodox.

And the OCA (but let's not get into that ).

I like the OCA the best!

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Yes, you are right.

The Pope is infallible but the Church isn't perfect though . . .

Alex

The quote that you cite has to be tempered with reality. While Bishop TIKHON is expressing what is common opinion (he is also playing to the ultra-conservative crowd of the Indiana list), that the EP has over-reached her bounds in taking the preminence in so-called "barbarian lands," you should at least acknowledge the reality that while the EP may believe this about themselves, certainly the Orthodox world does not. "Breath-taking" is not a word that would be used to describe her claims or actions. I would use "unprecedented" and "misguided," and history has a way of correcting these errors, and they will be corrected. (When's the last time you've seen Moscow bow to the EP's authority?) Whereas, Roman authority is unquestionable both by Rome, who has no problem asserting her authority in many important matters, and by particular Catholic churches who submit to her.

Again, the weakness of certain Patriarchates vis a vis the Turkish conquest of those lands only complicates the issue in relation to the EP. However, the polity practiced under the Sultan's sword, or now under the Moslem yoke, is, once again, a historical tragedy, not a development of Orthodox ecclesiology. To present it as somehow the Orthodox norm is to deny both history and reality.

I also think that you've understated the idea of Rome's needed approval for episcopal office as "swatting at gnats." It is the antithesis of this very principle which is at the heart of Orthodox ecclesiology. This cannot be simply dismissed as a minor matter. Does the EP tell Moscow which bishops they can elect, or approve of their patriarch? No bishop, Roman or otherwise, can meddle in the affairs of another church, especially when it relates to the election of bishops in their Holy Synod.

The EP's claims for various lands such as the US, Canada, Austraila, Western Europe, are temporary inconveneinces, not an assertion of Orthodox ecclesiology.

Priest Thomas

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Brendan:

"The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese works this way, more or less, with Constantinople being actively engaged in the selection of Bishops and particularly in the selection of the Archbishop. I'm not certain regarding the involvement of Constantinople in the selection of the Bishop for other jurisdictions that are "under" the EP, like the ACROD"

But that's exactely the point, these jurisdictions (the Greek Archdiocese, ACROD, the Ukrainians in North America) are "under" Constantinople, and no one pretends that it is otherwise.

However, the Eastern Catholic churches claim to be in communion with, but not under Rome, but still the appointment of bishops have to be aprroved by Rome.

Christian

Dear Christian,

Eastern Catholics do affirm they are in communion with Rome and have struggled against overarching Roman jurisdictionalism.

Ukrainians continue to oppose Roman involvement in their ecclesial affairs.

Just as Ukrainian Orthodox oppose Russian Orthodox involvement in theirs.

Orthodox triumphalism is about as attractive to us as Roman triumphalism you know.

Alex

Dear Father Thomas,

Thanks for your comments. I think that the remarks of Bishop Tikhon are of interest not so much for the contemporary claims to barbarian lands, but for the frank assessment of the influence of the EP in other churches. The EP has traditionally appointed the [Greek Orthodox] Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. And has also been involved in the outright take over of Patriarchal churches - e.g., Serbia, Bulgaria.

Such acts go far beyond any exercise of "Papal supremacy", and were undertaken with such regularity that they are arguably traditional, not anomalous. Moreover, they were occurring during the era of schism that was somehow related to "Papal supremacy". This history never seems to inform Orthodox criticisms of "Papal supremacy". IMO, this eerie silence detracts from the reasonableness of the criticisms.