Blame the Bishops!

[DOShea]

A captain of a ship is responsible for what happens on his ship. Period. If it sinks, he is still accountable, even if he had nothing to do with it personally. If there is mutiny, he is charged (ever see the Caine Mutiny?) … The bishop should have known better, and protected the sheep.

Then it is God’s fault Adam and Eve ate of the tree. He was in charge of it. Why then do we have Original Sin? Why were Adam and Eve put out of the garden? Why did death enter the world if, as you suggest in the next quote, “we should not blame” those who cause the event, only those in the position of authority at the time it happened.

You shouldn’t be worrying about Bishops if that’s the case. You have a much larger issue with God and the blame that goes to Him.

In this sense you cannot blame the Reformers for the split, nor the Orthodox for the schism, nor any secessionist group. They may have been mean and nasty and heretical and unrepentent, etc., but that does not excuse the fact that there was a schism. To my mind that lands squarely at the bishops’ doorstep.

That’s the most absurd conclusion I’ve read in a long time. If what you hold is true, then every time there is a crime we should be locking up a policeman and allowing the perpetrator of the crime to go free. This seems to presume the Bishops could have done something to stop it and didn’t. What is it you think they lacked?

You might examine the why behind why a ship’s Captain is relieved when his ship meets calamity. It’s not simply a matter of he’s in charge at the time. The issue is that he is tasked with certifying the qualifications of all those who serve under him. Thus, by definition of running aground or collision, there was a defect in training or certification that was his doing. In other words, it’s not simply because he was in charge; it was because he, indirectly, caused the problem. Captains who command a ship that is in collision where they was no fault, no dificiency observed, are not relieved. They were in charge, they suffered calamity, but they did not contribute to or cause it.

 

[FCEGM]

That’s the most absurd conclusion I’ve read in a long time. If what you hold is true, then every time there is a crime we should be locking up a policeman and allowing the perpetrator of the crime to go free. This seems to presume the Bishops could have done something to stop it and didn’t. What is it you think they lacked?

St. Athanasius comes to mind. So, the Arians were all HIS fault. Uh huh.

 

[Nita]

… In Catholic Theology as I understand it, the bishops are responsible for what happens in their churches. If the enemy mounts a successful attack, guess who should be blamed. The devil? **The bishop should have known better, and protected the sheep. **

But that is exactly what the bishops did do – they did protect their sheep – from those who were teaching a gospel contrary to the one…
Gal 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gk: anathema).

The anathemas were pronounced about doctrines contrary to those previously held.

 

[Truthstalker]

But that is exactly what the bishops did do – they did protect their sheep – from those who were teaching a gospel contrary to the one…
Gal 1:8-9 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed (Gk: anathema).
The anathemas were pronounced about doctrines contrary to those previously held.

The record has been rather uneven on this. You have Hilary and Athanasius and Augustine on one side, and Arian bishops and those who used their office for personal gain or to protect child molestors on the other. Bishops have been a long way from a uniform orthodoxy or orthopraxis.

There probably was a time when pastoral action would have stopped Arius, either in his formation as a Christian or later. Episcopal action should not be limited to pronouncing anathemas.

Quote:
A captain of a ship is responsible for what happens on his ship. Period. If it sinks, he is still accountable, even if he had nothing to do with it personally. If there is mutiny, he is charged (ever see the Caine Mutiny?) … The bishop should have known better, and protected the sheep.
Then it is God’s fault Adam and Eve ate of the tree. He was in charge of it. Why then do we have Original Sin? Why were Adam and Eve put out of the garden? Why did death enter the world if, as you suggest in the next quote, “we should not blame” those who cause the event, only those in the position of authority at the time it happened.

You shouldn’t be worrying about Bishops if that’s the case. You have a much larger issue with God and the blame that goes to Him.

Quote:
In this sense you cannot blame the Reformers for the split, nor the Orthodox for the schism, nor any secessionist group. They may have been mean and nasty and heretical and unrepentent, etc., but that does not excuse the fact that there was a schism. To my mind that lands squarely at the bishops’ doorstep.
That’s the most absurd conclusion I’ve read in a long time. If what you hold is true, then every time there is a crime we should be locking up a policeman and allowing the perpetrator of the crime to go free. This seems to presume the Bishops could have done something to stop it and didn’t. What is it you think they lacked?

You might examine the why behind why a ship’s Captain is relieved when his ship meets calamity. It’s not simply a matter of he’s in charge at the time. The issue is that he is tasked with certifying the qualifications of all those who serve under him. Thus, by definition of running aground or collision, there was a defect in training or certification that was his doing. In other words, it’s not simply because he was in charge; it was because he, indirectly, caused the problem. Captains who command a ship that is in collision where they was no fault, no dificiency observed, are not relieved. They were in charge, they suffered calamity, but they did not contribute to or cause it.

The Captain is answerable and responsible in any case. That does not mean he is not guilty, nor that those under him are not guilty because they can shift the blame upwards. Bishops can be indirectly responsible for creating a problem.

I said “in a sense”: where I have taken it too far, identify it. An opposite exagerration will not correct an exagerration. Are you maintaining that bishops are analogous to God being in charge of the Garden? If so, then wow.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Truthstalker:

The record has been rather uneven on this. You have Hilary and Athanasius and Augustine on one side, and Arian bishops and those who used their office for personal gain or to protect child molestors on the other. Bishops have been a long way from a uniform orthodoxy or orthopraxis.

There probably was a time when pastoral action would have stopped Arius, either in his formation as a Christian or later. Episcopal action should not be limited to pronouncing anathemas.

Do you not read in the Scriptures that Kingdom of God is like the field planted with wheat:
Matthew 13:24-30:

24 Another parable he proposed to them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man that sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while men were asleep, his enemy came and oversowed cockle among the wheat and went his way. 26 And when the blade was sprung up, and had brought forth fruit, then appeared also the cockle. 27 And the servants of the good man of the house coming said to him. Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? Whence then hath it cockle? 28 And he said to them: An enemy hath done this. And the servants said to him: Wilt thou that we go and gather it up? 29 And he said: No, lest perhaps gathering up the cockle, you root up the wheat also together with it. 30 Suffer both to grow until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to burn, but the wheat gather ye into my barn.

Do you not understand the meaning of this parable?

 

[Truthstalker]

Do you not read in the Scriptures that Kingdom of God is like the field planted with wheat:

Do you not understand the meaning of this parable?

Yep! Pure Calvinism, that. There are the elect children of God, and then there are those who are not. It is not the choice of the plant as to what kind of plant it is, not does it choose where it goes at harvest. It cannot change its nature from one kind to another.

But I think you were saying something else, such as that bishops are untrustworthy, as some are weeds (not true bishops, though they occupy the office), and so we cannot trust the church hierarchy. God guides the church despite the bishops. Chrysostom said that the road to hell is lined with the skulls of bishops (sorry, I don’t have the reference).

But, hmmmmm…Somehow I think you had something else in mind.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Sorry, I am feeling cranky this morning. I want to explore the idea that the EO/OO schism and the EO/Catholic schisms, as well as the Reformation, were matters that the bishops were ultimately responsible for, under the assumption that they were the ones that God put in charge of the church (whether they were or are valid is outside the scope of this thread, which I think has enough on its hands). That being the case, the bishops are also responsible for patching things up and putting the church back together the way God intended.

Comments?

It wouldn’t be the first time they made a fine mess of things.​

Some of them are amusing - as long one ignores what they are meant to be. Then the waves of cynicism start to flow. Maybe that’s a way of saying they are a joke … Thinking of the sins of others is not recommended, I believe…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Nestorian and Monophysite schisms (to use a convenient name) seem to have been based on terminological and verbal misunderstandings.

Nobody believes these heresies any more in the senses they were condemned by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils–if anybody ever did.

An ancient theologian of the Assyrian Church of the East said something that seems no different from Chalcedon, to me.

And in the Coptic Church, the priest holds the Lamb in his hands just before Communion and prays what is basically the defintion of Chalcedon.

Candidates for ordination in the Armenian church must repudiate the teaching of Eutyches–credited with starting Monophysitism.

All of which raises disturbing questions about the excommunicating Churches, which **have to be **faced. Nestorius (who was in exile ) welcomed Chalcedon’s doctrine. Unfortunately “sorry” & “I made a mess of things” are words Churches are not good at saying. God only knows why ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

1. The bishops, it is claimed, are in charge of the church. (On this thread, stay away from examining this question.)
2. Therefore they are responsible and answerable for what happens.
3. Therefore if schism happens between bishops, they are responsible.
4. Schism has happened. Let’s look at two:
   a. The patriarchy of Antioch split between the Greeks (then united with the West) and what became the Oriental Orthodox. This weakened the church significantly. This patriarchy had control over Arabia, and did not move against Islam but rather was conquered. One could blame the OO/EO split for the rise of Islam, as that happened “on their watch”. The split was between bishops.
   b. The Rome/Constantinople split, where the bishops excommunicated each other.

For the “children of the West” (Catholics and Protestants) these splits are less emotionally involved than the Reformation, which from an episcopal ecclesiological viewpoint was a disaster.

Individual Christians cannot be faulted for schism when they are following their bishops, who caused the schism. The bishops broke it so they should fix it.

What is never explained by the Great Panjandrums High Up, doing all that patriarching & bishoping & whatnot, is why the “plebs” are numbered with their bishops - the bishops who agreed with Arius were hereticated (which can be argued for); quite why the people should be slung out of the Church with their bishop is not clear. Were all Donatists, Donatist ? The readiness with which Visigothic Spain turned from being Arian to being Catholic after 586 suggests that either religion was very lightly worn, or that a lot of nominal Arians were feally Catholics at heart: or both possibilities.​

Maybe the people were seen as useful cargo proving that bishops had somebody under them, & were thus real bishops.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Yep! Pure Calvinism, that. There are the elect children of God, and then there are those who are not. It is not the choice of the plant as to what kind of plant it is, not does it choose where it goes at harvest. It cannot change its nature from one kind to another.

But I think you were saying something else, such as that bishops are untrustworthy, as some are weeds (not true bishops, though they occupy the office), and so we cannot trust the church hierarchy. God guides the church despite the bishops. Chrysostom said that the road to hell is lined with the skulls of bishops (sorry, I don’t have the reference).

But, hmmmmm…Somehow I think you had something else in mind.

Wow, I’ve never heard of Jesus Christ being accused of being a Calvinist before! BTW, I was saying what I said in a still earlier post that we are human, whether we are bishops or laity. Being a fallible human does not dissolve the bishops consecration and apostolic orders. IOW, his sins do not prejudice his office. Peter remained the first of the Apostles even though he denied Jesus 3 times.

 

[Truthstalker]

Wow, I’ve never heard of Jesus Christ being accused of being a Calvinist before! BTW, I was saying what I said in a still earlier post that we are human, whether we are bishops or laity. Being a fallible human does not dissolve the bishops consecration and apostolic orders. IOW, his sins do not prejudice his office. Peter remained the first of the Apostles even though he denied Jesus 3 times.

Christ a Calvinist? Rather, Calvin was a Christian. He was taken with the holiness and majesty of God.

Calvinism is something to be accused of? Hmmm. I do not call myself a Calvinist, but I guess I could be accused of Calvinistic tendencies. For me the word these days is useless, as people use it in all sorts of ways, around here usually pejoratively.

My understanding is that in the early church apostolic succession was used as a seal of faithfulness to the apostolic teaching. These days, with Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and other bishops running around, all claiming apostloic succession and therefore legitimacy, the argument cannot be used, as they teach very different things. An outsider looking at it has to use personal interpretation to decide which is correct, although they all swear up and down personal interpretation is wrong, and you must only believe them. It is their mess, IMHO, and they need to clean it up.

 

[Truthstalker]

Bump. Or are we done here?