R
RyanBlack
Guest
No, he is no longer part of the Church, just as would be the case with a Catholic bishop who decided he is longer part of the Church.
- Status
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
We would say that is if he separated from the Pope. Seperating from the Pope is seperating from the Catholic Church.
But in the Orthodox Church all Bishops are equal, so Seperating from the other Bishops couldn’t make him outside of the Church anymore than it would make them outside of it, it seems.
If there is no superior Bishop or Bishops I don’t understand how a Bishop can be considered “separated from the Church” simply for Seperating from the other Bishops.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
“Simply for separting from the other bishops”? I don’t think I would choose the word “simply” to characterize departing from communion with your brother bishops.
For the Orthodox, departing from communion with your brother bishops is separating from the Orthodox Church, just as departing from communion with the Pope (and the other bishops who remain in communion with the Pope, who is also a bishop) is separating from the Catholic Church.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
But the logic does not make sense because in your church all Bishops are equal. He could say “they’ve left the church” and “I’m the church just as much” or “they are not the center of the church more than me”
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Sorry for saying “your church” just realised your Catholic, but defending the Orthodox position made me assume otherwise
R
RyanBlack
Guest
He could say “they’ve left the Church” and indeed, probably would. However, one bishop by himself does not constitute the Church. Furthermore, this really is, on the practical level, a non-issue. Historically, there have been Orthodox bishops who left communion with the Orthodox, but no one who knows anything about the Orthodox is left not knowing which particular churches make up the Orthodox Church (this applies to the Eastern Orthodox or the Oriental Orthodox).
D
dzheremi
Guest
That’s easy enough, Paul. If a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church separates from his brother bishops who are in communion with the Pope, then that person has separated himself from the visible communion of the Roman Catholic Church, no? This really isn’t very different than in Orthodoxy. For instance, in my communion, there have been issues with the Ethiopian ‘Synod in Exile’ (formed by Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo in exile from communist Ethiopia during the days of the Derg/Mengistu Hailemariam regime, which heavily persecuted the Church), which separated itself due to the political situation in the Ethiopia of its day, and refused to recognize the Patriarch elected then, HH Abune Paulos (RIP). The rest of the communion, however, did recognize HH Abune Paulos as having been canonically elected, and hence those who continued to not do so thereby placed themselves outside of communion with the rest of the Church over this issue. There are perhaps shades of the ‘Western Schism’ and Avingon papacy in this (insofar as it concerns rival claimants to the same seat), but I don’t want to draw too close a parallel, only to point out that just as that period ultimately did not destroy the Roman Catholic Church, this likewise does not destroy the Orthodox Church, as it is not as though there is no way to know who is following the rules and who is not. (Rather, that is many Roman Catholics’ idea of what Orthodoxy must be like since we “don’t have a Pope” – except we totally do, HH Pope Tawadros II – so therefore everything is craaaazy and nobody can ever really know up from down or whatever. 
)
By contrast, the opposite situation exists in modern Eritrea, where the government of Isaias Afwerki illegally removed the Eritrean Patriarch, HH Abune Antonios, and replaced him with a subservient puppet elected by a government-gathered (and hand-picked) ‘synod’, who placed an imposter patriarch by the name of Dioskoros on the throne and threw the actual Patriarch in jail (he’s been in secret detention for years now). This is not acceptable, and the other Oriental Orthodox churches do not recognize his deposition, much less his replacement (the people of Eritrea, I’d imagine, do not have much of a choice in the matter, sadly, but there are still those who recognize HH Abune Antonios, as in the majority of the diaspora, and the Christians who have bravely defied the government in-country, including many monastics). Here the diptychs come in handy again, as you can tell by them who is a part of the Church and who isn’t. In the Coptic Orthodox Church diptych, HH Abune Antonios is always mentioned, both by preexisting agreement and custom (the churches of Ethiopia and now the independent Eritrea being the daughter churches of the Coptic), and to underline exactly where it is we stand on this issue.
You might then be thinking to yourself “Aha! What a mess! They wouldn’t have this problem if they had a supreme, infallible bishop as we Catholics do!” Hmmm…well, disregarding the fact that you already have had that problem in the past despite having a bishop whom you claim is supreme and infallible (see: the aforementioned Western Schism), there is also something to be said in the above examples against the unfair and wrong characterization of the Orthodox as “stagnant” and unable to respond to modern problems, for some reason. I should think that these two examples (which are just two that are well-known in the OO communion; the EO have had their own issues in the recent and distant past, but it’s not my place to comment on them either way, since that’s not my church; I do notice that they deal with them much as we deal with ours, though) speak truth to those lies in that nobody can say that we are without problems, but also nobody can say that we are without solutions to said problems, at least as much as any Catholic will say is provided by their infallible bishop, Pope Francis. After all, what does the RCC do about its various splinter groups such as the Old Catholics, the Evangelical Catholic movement (these people, I mean), not to mention the various Protestant churches not claiming the name ‘Catholic’? You say “We don’t recognize these people, no matter what they name themselves or claim their pedigree is”, right? And you don’t commune their members, and you don’t allow your members to commune with them, right? Welllll…that’s exactly what we do about everyone outside of our communion. So it’s not different. Catholics may say “Well, sure, but where does your AUTHORITY to do that come from, without an infallible bishop?” This is a non-question, as our bishops do not need to be infallible in the first place to see who is and who isn’t acting according to the norms of our communion…just obedient to the Fathers and the canons and laws as govern their church, same as any non-infallible Catholic bishop (i.e. bishops who aren’t the Pope) would have to be.
So, I’m sorry, but I think that the RCC position gives its faithful the idea that they have so much more assurance and unity and clarity and this and that than the Orthodox must have, but in practice there is very little to point to (save the Roman-specific interpretation of this or that verse of St. Matthew’s gospel, which…ehhh…as Protestants have shown us, merely having an interpretation of the Bible is no guarantee of anything) that actually bears that out. In practice, they are two different models of how the Church should be run and authority recognized and wielded, but given how they’re actually used, it’s really silly for Catholics to continue to insist that they have all this magical unity glue in their Pope that somehow we don’t have just because we don’t treat any one person as though they are infallible and the locus of unity around all must gather in order to be considered Orthodox.
)By contrast, the opposite situation exists in modern Eritrea, where the government of Isaias Afwerki illegally removed the Eritrean Patriarch, HH Abune Antonios, and replaced him with a subservient puppet elected by a government-gathered (and hand-picked) ‘synod’, who placed an imposter patriarch by the name of Dioskoros on the throne and threw the actual Patriarch in jail (he’s been in secret detention for years now). This is not acceptable, and the other Oriental Orthodox churches do not recognize his deposition, much less his replacement (the people of Eritrea, I’d imagine, do not have much of a choice in the matter, sadly, but there are still those who recognize HH Abune Antonios, as in the majority of the diaspora, and the Christians who have bravely defied the government in-country, including many monastics). Here the diptychs come in handy again, as you can tell by them who is a part of the Church and who isn’t. In the Coptic Orthodox Church diptych, HH Abune Antonios is always mentioned, both by preexisting agreement and custom (the churches of Ethiopia and now the independent Eritrea being the daughter churches of the Coptic), and to underline exactly where it is we stand on this issue.
You might then be thinking to yourself “Aha! What a mess! They wouldn’t have this problem if they had a supreme, infallible bishop as we Catholics do!” Hmmm…well, disregarding the fact that you already have had that problem in the past despite having a bishop whom you claim is supreme and infallible (see: the aforementioned Western Schism), there is also something to be said in the above examples against the unfair and wrong characterization of the Orthodox as “stagnant” and unable to respond to modern problems, for some reason. I should think that these two examples (which are just two that are well-known in the OO communion; the EO have had their own issues in the recent and distant past, but it’s not my place to comment on them either way, since that’s not my church; I do notice that they deal with them much as we deal with ours, though) speak truth to those lies in that nobody can say that we are without problems, but also nobody can say that we are without solutions to said problems, at least as much as any Catholic will say is provided by their infallible bishop, Pope Francis. After all, what does the RCC do about its various splinter groups such as the Old Catholics, the Evangelical Catholic movement (these people, I mean), not to mention the various Protestant churches not claiming the name ‘Catholic’? You say “We don’t recognize these people, no matter what they name themselves or claim their pedigree is”, right? And you don’t commune their members, and you don’t allow your members to commune with them, right? Welllll…that’s exactly what we do about everyone outside of our communion. So it’s not different. Catholics may say “Well, sure, but where does your AUTHORITY to do that come from, without an infallible bishop?” This is a non-question, as our bishops do not need to be infallible in the first place to see who is and who isn’t acting according to the norms of our communion…just obedient to the Fathers and the canons and laws as govern their church, same as any non-infallible Catholic bishop (i.e. bishops who aren’t the Pope) would have to be.
So, I’m sorry, but I think that the RCC position gives its faithful the idea that they have so much more assurance and unity and clarity and this and that than the Orthodox must have, but in practice there is very little to point to (save the Roman-specific interpretation of this or that verse of St. Matthew’s gospel, which…ehhh…as Protestants have shown us, merely having an interpretation of the Bible is no guarantee of anything) that actually bears that out. In practice, they are two different models of how the Church should be run and authority recognized and wielded, but given how they’re actually used, it’s really silly for Catholics to continue to insist that they have all this magical unity glue in their Pope that somehow we don’t have just because we don’t treat any one person as though they are infallible and the locus of unity around all must gather in order to be considered Orthodox.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
It is not accurate to say that “the Orthodox” don’t have visible unity because their is no “bishop as point of unity”, the Syriac Orthodox explicitly view their Patriarch of Antioch as Supreme Head, Universal Father, and the point of Unity for Syriac Orthodox worldwide. He is also successor to St. Peter, as is the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, and the Latin Pope of Rome.
From a Syriac Orthodox site:
THE PATRIARCH
Since St. Peter has assumed the leadership of the Church and had make use of Antioch as the capital to lead the Church, those who are ordained as Patriarchs by the church to succeed St.Peter are no doubt the successors and emissaries of St.Peter. The divine grace is handed down from Jesus to St.Peter, St.Peter to his successors the Metropolitans to Priests, and from Priests to the laity. Thus in the Syrian Orthodox Church the Patriarch represents the first and the foremost link in respect of the apostolic succession and divine priesthood.
The universal Syrian Orthodox Church perceives its strength and Unity in His Holiness the Patriarch, the supreme head of the Church. As the Successor of the St.Peter, His Holiness is the embodiment and symbol of unity of the universal Syrian Orthodox Church. This embodiment signifies two type of representative characters. Firstly, as the successor of St.Peter, the patriarch represent him. As St.Peter is the chief shepherd and supreme head, the Patriarch by virtue of his position upholds the unity of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church. Since the Patriarch’s ordination and coronation are deemed to be through the grace of the Holy Ghost and by the will of God, the first representative character is bestowed from above and is divine. So the Patriarch as the high priest the Universal Church, represents Jesus Christ when he celebrates the Holy Eucharist. Secondly the Patriarch as the chief Shepherd of the Church, is the emissary of the entire body of believers. The church is not only an invisible spiritual fellowship but is also a historical reality. So, all the attributes of the Church like one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic must also become a historical reality. And the Patriarchs who are ordained from time to time and represent the universal Syrian Church as the Supreme heads, make the unity of the Church a reality.
Among the Supreme Heads of the various Churches, the visible point of unity is the sharing of Eucharist. Those to whom Eucharist is shared are united, those who cannot are outside the Church.
From a Syriac Orthodox site:
THE PATRIARCH
Since St. Peter has assumed the leadership of the Church and had make use of Antioch as the capital to lead the Church, those who are ordained as Patriarchs by the church to succeed St.Peter are no doubt the successors and emissaries of St.Peter. The divine grace is handed down from Jesus to St.Peter, St.Peter to his successors the Metropolitans to Priests, and from Priests to the laity. Thus in the Syrian Orthodox Church the Patriarch represents the first and the foremost link in respect of the apostolic succession and divine priesthood.
The universal Syrian Orthodox Church perceives its strength and Unity in His Holiness the Patriarch, the supreme head of the Church. As the Successor of the St.Peter, His Holiness is the embodiment and symbol of unity of the universal Syrian Orthodox Church. This embodiment signifies two type of representative characters. Firstly, as the successor of St.Peter, the patriarch represent him. As St.Peter is the chief shepherd and supreme head, the Patriarch by virtue of his position upholds the unity of the Universal Syrian Orthodox Church. Since the Patriarch’s ordination and coronation are deemed to be through the grace of the Holy Ghost and by the will of God, the first representative character is bestowed from above and is divine. So the Patriarch as the high priest the Universal Church, represents Jesus Christ when he celebrates the Holy Eucharist. Secondly the Patriarch as the chief Shepherd of the Church, is the emissary of the entire body of believers. The church is not only an invisible spiritual fellowship but is also a historical reality. So, all the attributes of the Church like one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic must also become a historical reality. And the Patriarchs who are ordained from time to time and represent the universal Syrian Church as the Supreme heads, make the unity of the Church a reality.
Among the Supreme Heads of the various Churches, the visible point of unity is the sharing of Eucharist. Those to whom Eucharist is shared are united, those who cannot are outside the Church.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
They are A successor of Peter but not THE successor of Peter.
Jesus gave Peter the keys (Matthew 16:18-19) which gives him supreme authority in the Church. In terms of individuals only one Bishop can have his unique Supremacy logically even though a few others could be his successors and have some extra power therefore.
Peter was Bishop in a few places yes
but when he moved, his supreme authority MOVED WITH HIM, he was Bishop in Rome last and died there, so logically speaking the next Bishop of Rome and next etc… has the unique Supremacy of the apostle Peter which is logically invested into the episcopal chair of the See of Rome.This is why Vatican City has the keys as it’s flag to represent our believe about where the keys of the kingdom are.
You will disagree with this probably haha
D
dronald
Guest
Seeing that these requirements are not laid out in the Bible, by what authority can one decide who has the correct interpretation?They are A successor of Peter but not THE successor of Peter.
Jesus gave Peter the keys (Matthew 16:18-19) which gives him supreme authority in the Church. In terms of individuals only one Bishop can have his unique Supremacy logically even though a few others could be his successors and have some extra power therefore.
Peter was Bishop in a few places yes
This is why Vatican City has the keys as it’s flag to represent our believe about where the keys of the kingdom are.
You will disagree this probably haha
That is, how does a middle man like me with a fallable mind choose a side?
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
The interpretation must be logical because the apostle teaches that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
In this case the protestant saying “let scripture interpret scripture” is great, so we can:
- Remember Kind David prefigured Jesus and that Jesus is his heir.
- Read Isaiah 22 and realise King David had a man with the keys. (I call him a prime minister)
- From this learn what the keys mean. Supremacy (he shall shut none shall open, he shall open none shall shut) and succession to the office as demonstrated in that passage whilst remembering Isaiah calls it an office(position)
Isaiah 22 can be used to help interpret Matthew 16
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
D
dronald
Guest
I wasn’t addressing Peter’s role as super special; rather, Antioch vs Rome.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Balderdash, poppycock, et cetera. From one of your illustrious Popes of the past, Pope Gregory I (6th century), in his letter to Eulogious, Chalcedonian Alexandrian bishop, writes as follows (emphasis added):
This reflects the ancient understanding of the ‘See of St. Peter’ as being resident in Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (via St. Mark, who was taught Christian doctrine by St. Peter himself). The idea that only Rome represents the rightful successor to the See of St. Peter is a relative novelty even within the West, as the above quote from the Pope of Rome himself shows.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
By studying history in the early Church fathers writings. Orthodox also agree Peter went to Rome last and died there
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
I said they are A successor of Peter. I disagree with you if you’re saying they’re all THE as in an equal sense
D
dzheremi
Guest
Take up with Pope Gregory, then. I’m merely pointing out that you are wrong, and furthermore at odds with your own history (as is the entire RCC by advancing this idea that Rome is the unique and exclusive successor to St. Peter; sadly, I’m not on Pope Francis’ cold call list, so I have to be content with pointing this out to individual Roman Catholics, as well as curious Protestants like our friend dronald). What you do with this information is up to you.
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
Pope Gregory never said “equally”. I never said I disagreed with him
P
Paul_Edwards
Guest
I’ve never heard the church say “no-one else is a successor of Peter in any sense”
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The problem with your statement is you seem to assume there is nothing above a bishop.
Yes all bishops are equal but, as I said earlier in this very thread. they are all answerable to their Holy Synod.
A Bishop who breaks with his Holy Synod is no longer part of the Orthodox Church. A great example of this is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kievan Patriarchate. Because they broke with their Holy Synod (the Moscow Patriarchate) they left the Orthodox Church - regardless of what name they use.
- Status