Blame the Bishops!

[Truthstalker]

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?

 

[totallylost]

What has the Bishops done to the Church?

 

[Cluny]

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.

 

[totallylost]

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.

What do all these have to do with Catholic schisms and the Catholic bishops?

 

[JustaServant]

What do all these have to do with Catholic schisms and the Catholic bishops?

I’m a little confused about what the whole point is in the OP. Perhaps Truthstalker can fill us in on what he is talking about.

 

[mardukm]

What do all these have to do with Catholic schisms and the Catholic bishops?

Church history.

Blessings

 

[totallylost]

I better stay out of this lol. I’m 100% confused here.

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m a little confused about 1what the whole point is in the OP. Perhaps Truthstalker can fill us in on what he is talking about.

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.

 

[totallylost]

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.

Which bishops should be responsible? The ones that split up, or the ones that live today?

 

[JustaServant]

1. The bishops, it is claimed, are in charge of the church. (On this thread, stay away from examining this question.)
   I seriously don’t see how you can title a thread: “Blame the Bishops”, but stay away from this subject, it makes no sense.
2. Therefore they are responsible and answerable for what happens.
3. Therefore if schism happens between bishops, they are responsible.
   Points 2 and 3 are the saying the same thing. Anyway, the schism between East and West was far more complicated than disagreements between Bishops.
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.
   The rise of Islam occured 400 years before the schism between East and West.

b. The Rome/Constantinople split, where the bishops excommunicated each other.
Again, history is more complicated than that. The excommunications were the END RESULT, not the start.

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.
What is less emotionally driven? The split between East and West? Or Protestantism? Much of that depends on when and where you were born into history.

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.
Um…the Bishops (Pope and Patriarch) have been fixing it for a number of years. Talks have been ongoing.

 

[Truthstalker]

1. The bishops, it is claimed, are in charge of the church. (On this thread, stay away from examining this question.)
   I seriously don’t see how you can title a thread: “Blame the Bishops”, but stay away from this subject, it makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense. It assumes that the question about whether the bishops are who they claim to be has been settled in the bishops’ favor: “are the bishops the legitimate leaders of the church?” Presbyterians, for example, don’t have bishops. I don’t want to burn through the thread debating this question, but rather the one I posted. I am trying to limit the thread to the topic, as I have seen numerous threads become rabbit trails.

1. Therefore they are responsible and answerable for what happens.
2. Therefore if schism happens between bishops, they are responsible.
   Points 2 and 3 are the saying the same thing. Anyway, the schism between East and West was far more complicated than disagreements between Bishops.

I thought I would spell things out. They are not quite the same. The actual official schism was enacted by bishops. Would you agree to that?

1. 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.
   The rise of Islam occured 400 years before the schism between East and West.

Agreed. And when did the OO and OE split happen?

b. The Rome/Constantinople split, where the bishops excommunicated each other.
Again, history is more complicated than that. The excommunications were the END RESULT, not the start.

And it was episcopal action that brought the whole thing about, right?

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.
What is less emotionally driven? The split between East and West? Or Protestantism? Much of that depends on when and where you were born into history.

Which is why I did not select the Reformation as the example, as I believe most people here are children of the West.

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.
Um…the Bishops (Pope and Patriarch) have been fixing it for a number of years. Talks have been ongoing.

So you agree with the premise that every schism in the church has been the fault of the bishops?

 

[Truthstalker]

Which bishops should be responsible? The ones that split up, or the ones that live today?

According to Catholic theology, the bishops of today are the successors of the ones that split up. They certainly inherit the problem of being in schism. They would be the ones responsible for fixing things, as the long-dead bishops are not exactly now responsible for their dioceses.

 

[JustaServant]

You are oversimplifying the issue. There were many other problems leading up to the schism of 1054.
Language was a major issue. By the time the split happened, the official language of the west was Latin and the official language of the east was Greek. The language barrier also contributed to the split. While we normally point to the change in the Nicene Creed as the cause of the split, it probably would be better to say that it was the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

According to Catholic theology, the bishops of today are the successors of the ones that split up. They certainly inherit the problem of being in schism. They would be the ones responsible for fixing things, as the long-dead bishops are not exactly now responsible for their dioceses.

You’re right, it will be the bishops who will “fix things up,” at least from a temporal point of view. But it would be wrong to blame the bishops for causing the problem in the first place. The problem was schismatics who also happened to be bishops, giving their schism legitimacy (as a schism.) But it would be just as wrong to blame “Apostles” for betraying Jesus, and denying him, when it was individuals who also happened to be Apostles. In the case of schisms, there are many instances when the bishops did indeed fix things up. Sometimes not. But in any event it’s not because we have bishops that we have a problem, but because we are human, and sinners.

 

[DOShea]

I’m having a hard time understanding the purposes of the discussion.

Blame the Bishops? What does that mean, exactly? Are we talking about some official assigning of “fault,” are we talking about retroactive, postmortem punishment, or what?

If I asked a person to watch my dog when I went on vacation, it would be clear they were responsible for my dog. If someone broke into their home and stole my dog, I would think the burglar is responsible for the calamity, not the person who had responsibility for the dog’s welfare. Clearly they had no intention of doing anything but keeping my dog safe, but for the act of another they likely would have.

So who do I blame for loss of the dog? My friend? The burglar? The dog?

Or how about this? God creates Adam and Eve, commands them to not eat of specific tree. They eat of it anyway. Should we blame God, because He was in charge of the tree?

That’s what I’m getting from this, and why I’m confused.

 

[Nita]

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?

Hi stranger, been awhile.
You’re always cranky , and trying to stir up an interesting, heated discussion - just for the sake of discussion.

**Of course it’s up to the bishops **(in Catholicism of course). They’re the ones with the authority. Has nothing to do with who caused it. How do Protestants handle the issue of who has the authority? Who do you see as the one/s in your denomination with the authority to decide for you? Will you accept his/their decision should they decide to reconcile with Rome?

Let’s get this rift mended; I ache for all of us who love Jesus to be one.
Eph. 4:3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 4:6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

 

[Renko]

What has the Bishops done to the Church?

Plenty, Why do you think our church has suffered so much,liberlism,modernism, sex scandle ect. The Bishops do not heed vatican teaching, they’re all a bunch of liberals.

 

[Truthstalker]

Hi stranger, been awhile.
You’re always cranky , and trying to stir up an interesting, heated discussion - just for the sake of discussion.

Pfui. Just had to say that. Hiya Nita!

**Of course it’s up to the bishops **(in Catholicism of course). They’re the ones with the authority. Has nothing to do with who caused it. How do Protestants handle the issue of who has the authority? Who do you see as the one/s in your denomination with the authority to decide for you? Will you accept his/their decision should they decide to reconcile with Rome?

Interesting question. We submit to the session (elders) of the local church, which is part of the presbytery (all the elders in a geographic area). The presbyteries form the denomination, headed by the moderator, who specifically and emphatically has no doctrinal functions but does stuff like files the paperwork and makes coffee for endless meetings and finds the location for the General Assembly, which happens once or twice a year and to which we send delegates from our elders, and they vote on things and form committees and issue statements and so forth. From where I am that is all rather remote. I have read most of our “position papers” but there is no requirement to submit to them.

Let’s say the inconceivable happened, and some bishop with a charism of reconciliation approached the denomination and said “let’s talk.” 2,000 years and position papers later, let’s say an awareness came that those papers all pointed Romeward. By then I would think there would be those who would never reconcile with Rome, and they would fight it, and there would be others. Whatever was left of the denomination after that would figure out some way to be Catholic, whether with some sort of Reformed Rite paralleling the Anglican Rite or with simple dissolution into the local parishes.

More interesting still, and with more bearing on your question, is what would happen if the pastor came back from General Assembly and told us we better start learning Latin. Shock and awe. There are commands in Scripture about submitting to elders as those who have watch over your soul. If they did all this in a pastorally competent way (loaded if) then I would submit. But it would take a lot of work, from Rome, from the pastors and elders, and from me.

 

[Truthstalker]

I’m having a hard time understanding the purposes of the discussion.

Blame the Bishops? What does that mean, exactly? Are we talking about some official assigning of “fault,” are we talking about retroactive, postmortem punishment, or what?

If I asked a person to watch my dog when I went on vacation, it would be clear they were responsible for my dog. If someone broke into their home and stole my dog, I would think the burglar is responsible for the calamity, not the person who had responsibility for the dog’s welfare. Clearly they had no intention of doing anything but keeping my dog safe, but for the act of another they likely would have.

So who do I blame for loss of the dog? My friend? The burglar? The dog?

Or how about this? God creates Adam and Eve, commands them to not eat of specific tree. They eat of it anyway. Should we blame God, because He was in charge of the tree?

That’s what I’m getting from this, and why I’m confused.

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?*) An engineer is responsible for whatever documents his seal shows up on, even if he does not check every calculation, etc. A dentist is responsible for his subordinates. If a robber overcomes a US Marshall that Marshall will have some explaining to do. It is like this in every profession. The one in charge cannot blame his subordinate. If the enemy attacks and captures the ship, the Board of Inquiry will hold the captain responsible. 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.

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.

 

[totallylost]

1. The whole point? Are you pointing out, because of the schism, the Catholic Church isn’t relevant anymore?
2. If this logic is applied, then we shouldn’t be responsible for our sins too. Since God is our creator, He should be in charge of our freewill. He created it.
3. “That’s his problem, not our problem. He alone should fix things up.” contradicts with “Love your neighbor as you love yourself”.