M
malphono
Guest
Have a look at [post=5376939]this post[/post] from mardukm. It should help.
How much authority does the Bisop of Rome has in the Estern churches?
- Status
D
dcointin
Guest
Thanks!Have a look at [post=5376939]this post[/post] from mardukm. It should help.
“Low Petrine view: Every bishop is a successor of St. Peter. A head bishop has no true and proper plenary jurisdiction, but merely a local jurisdiction of his own See. He has no authority different from any of his brother bishops. At best, he is a spokesman for or representative of his brother bishops. If there is a disagreement between his brother bishops and himself, he must always concede to the will of the majority.”
What is “plenary jurisdiction”?
M
malphono
Guest
D
dcointin
Guest
Why do I feel like I need a law degree to understand Catholic theology? 
D
dcointin
Guest
The Church might borrow terminology from law, but it is not a legal institution. This is one point that Orthodoxy stresses, and Fr. Schmemann in particular in his contribution to “The Primacy of Peter”.
M
malphono
Guest
OK, no, the Church itself is not a “legal” institution. However, in certain cases (such as “jurisdiction” itself), there are certainly concepts within the Church that are, at the very least, shared with law.
D
dcointin
Guest
I didn’t mean to turn this into a discussion about legalism, so I’ll stop making comments about that.
I’m still learning about the way in which Orthodox Churches are governed, so I can only speak from my limited knowledge and experience, but I would say that we do not follow the “Low Petrine” model.
The Antiochian Archdiocese in North America is governed by the Metropolitan, who is assisted by auxillary bishops. The auxillary bishops are not bishops in their own right, but only assistants to the metropolitan, and not diocesan bishops. This was promulgated by the Holy Synod of Antioch under the leadership of the Patriarch. This suggests to me that there is real authority at the Patriarchial and Metropolitan level that is not exercised by all bishop equally.
I’m still learning about the way in which Orthodox Churches are governed, so I can only speak from my limited knowledge and experience, but I would say that we do not follow the “Low Petrine” model.
The Antiochian Archdiocese in North America is governed by the Metropolitan, who is assisted by auxillary bishops. The auxillary bishops are not bishops in their own right, but only assistants to the metropolitan, and not diocesan bishops. This was promulgated by the Holy Synod of Antioch under the leadership of the Patriarch. This suggests to me that there is real authority at the Patriarchial and Metropolitan level that is not exercised by all bishop equally.
M
malphono
Guest
One has to keep in mind that while an auxiliary bishop (whether EO, EC, OO, OC, or RC) is a true bishop and possesses the fullness of the priesthood, etc, he has no jurisdiction in his own right. He is a bishop, absolutely, but is a “helper bishop” to the Ordinary who does have jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction that an auxiliary may exercise is in the name, and by the leave, of his superior.
The “Petrine views” don’t concern themselves with auxiliaries, but rather with those who do, in fact, exercise jurisdiction in their own right. So, I have to agree with mardukm that the EO do, in fact, espouse the “Low Petrine” view.
Just my (non-legal and non-etymological
) :twocents:
D
dcointin
Guest
The auxillary bishops were, as I understand it, true bishops before their demotion to auxillary status by the Holy Synod. That means it exercised real authority over them, and therefore not all bishops are jurisdictionally equal, as the Low Petrine view states.One has to keep in mind that while an auxiliary bishop (whether EO, EC, OO, OC, or RC) is a true bishop and possesses the fullness of the priesthood, etc, he has no jurisdiction in his own right. He is a bishop, absolutely, but is a “helper bishop” to the Ordinary who does have jurisdiction. Any jurisdiction that an auxiliary may exercise is in the name, and by the leave, of his superior.
The “Petrine views” don’t concern themselves with auxiliaries, but rather with those who do, in fact, exercise jurisdiction in their own right. So, I have to agree with mardukm that the EO do, in fact, espouse the “Low Petrine” view.
Just my (non-legal and non-etymological
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
How do the actions of your Patriarch in this case differ from the actions of a Pope when the Pope interferes in the affairs of a particular Church headed by its own bishop/metropolitan? This almost sounds like an embracing of the “Absolutist Petrine” view by Orthodoxy. (This is not meant to be condemnitory. I’m honestly curious as to the difference).
A
Aramis
Guest
@dcontin & Phillip
The Antiochian Orthodox system is… not typical of Orthodox Governance.
Looking at a similar situation in the OCA, one sees much closer to the low-petrine view.
Bishop Nikolai was accused of several abuses of authority. He was called to appear before the synod by the metropolitan. He refused. Until the synod itself met, and demanded he appear, no sanction was able to be levied.
The Synod of the OCA then removed him from office as Bishop of Sitka and Alaska.
Their metropolitan had no authority to remove him, nor even sanction him. Only to bring charges against him in the synod.
Then again, the OCA also has parish councils hire pastors from a list of approved presbyters, rather than bishops appointing pastors to the parishes…
The Antiochian Orthodox system is… not typical of Orthodox Governance.
Looking at a similar situation in the OCA, one sees much closer to the low-petrine view.
Bishop Nikolai was accused of several abuses of authority. He was called to appear before the synod by the metropolitan. He refused. Until the synod itself met, and demanded he appear, no sanction was able to be levied.
The Synod of the OCA then removed him from office as Bishop of Sitka and Alaska.
Their metropolitan had no authority to remove him, nor even sanction him. Only to bring charges against him in the synod.
Then again, the OCA also has parish councils hire pastors from a list of approved presbyters, rather than bishops appointing pastors to the parishes…
D
dcointin
Guest
That’s a good question! The AOCCNA’s relationship to the Patriarchate of Antioch is somewhat unclear to me. It’s “self-ruled” but not autonomous or autocephalus. This is a question I’ll have to ask my priest and get back to you on. Without knowing that relationship I don’t know how much of a parallel there would be to the Pope and particular Catholic Churches
There is definitely jurisdictional authority with the patriarch and metropolitan however, though I’m not sure exactly what authority they wield over diocesan bishops. It’s been very frustrating for me getting answers on this.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I never heard of that.
H
Hesychios
Guest
The synod of that church is treating the American organization like a mission diocese. I don’t think it’s right, since they had claimed to make the American church autonomous. It seems like a bit of backtracking.
I personally think they might have been afraid the Antiochian church in the Americas would decide to go it alone and merge with the OCA or some other jurisdiction. I don’t have anyone else’s (name removed by moderator)ut on that, it’s just what I suspect.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Don,
The dictionary definition brother Malphono provided gives two definitions. The second one is the one more closely aligned to what I have in mind when I use that term. Other (online) dictionaries give the definition of “full; complete; entire.” I have used “plenary” jurisdiction only in that sense, to refer to patriarchal jurisdiction, which is more “full and complete” than metropolical jurisdiction, which is “regional,” and also to distinguish it from “universal” jurisdiction.
Notice that brother Malphono gave a smiley after he referred to the first definition “unqualified; absolute.” I know for a fact that he, along with me, does not believe that head bishops have absolute power or authority, so I am pretty sure (given the smiley) he was just kidding around.
Blessings,
Marduk
Brother Malphono gave a dictionary definition. One thing to point out, though (and I hope I have guessed brother Malphono’s intention correctly).
The dictionary definition brother Malphono provided gives two definitions. The second one is the one more closely aligned to what I have in mind when I use that term. Other (online) dictionaries give the definition of “full; complete; entire.” I have used “plenary” jurisdiction only in that sense, to refer to patriarchal jurisdiction, which is more “full and complete” than metropolical jurisdiction, which is “regional,” and also to distinguish it from “universal” jurisdiction.
Notice that brother Malphono gave a smiley after he referred to the first definition “unqualified; absolute.” I know for a fact that he, along with me, does not believe that head bishops have absolute power or authority, so I am pretty sure (given the smiley) he was just kidding around.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
That point of view is not shared by a lot of EO. MOST EO I’ve met do not believe that there is any level of jurisdiction above that of the local bishop. You are one of 3 or 4 of the numerous EO I’ve met online who hold a High Petrine view. You are in good company, though. The EO hierarchs of the Ravenna Colloquy definitely had a High Petrine view. As did the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Blessings,
Marduk
H
hazcompat
Guest
- Status