My Orthodox Friend Wants to Know

[Pound_Coolish]

An Eastern Orthodox acquaintance of mine is wanting to know, "The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome? "

I told him, “I’ll have to look into that one more. Sounds like, though, that was meant to be a general rule with one exception. Exceptions make the rule.”

He replied, “No, exceptions mean the rule doesn’t apply in that situation. There is no one exception in the canon, so how does that work?”

Can anyone tell me more about what the Fourth Canon of the first Ecumincal Council says, and what it means?

Thank you for your time and thought.

 

[Seraphim73]

Should be interesting. And here is a link to all of the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils plus most of the councils whose canons were received by an ecumenical council.

 

[Vico]

An Eastern Orthodox acquaintance of mine is wanting to know, "The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome? "

I told him, “I’ll have to look into that one more. Sounds like, though, that was meant to be a general rule with one exception. Exceptions make the rule.”

He replied, “No, exceptions mean the rule doesn’t apply in that situation. There is no one exception in the canon, so how does that work?”

Can anyone tell me more about what the Fourth Canon of the first Ecumincal Council says, and what it means?

Thank you for your time and thought.

   Canon IV.It is by all means proper that a       bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but       should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or       because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the       suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in       writing, then the ordination should take place.  But in every       province the ratification of what is done should be left to the       Metropolitan.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html

The Ravenna document:2. The Regional Level

1. Since the Church reveals itself to be catholic in the synaxis of the local Church, this catholicity must truly manifest itself in communion with the other Churches which confess the same apostolic faith and share the same basic ecclesial structure, beginning with those close at hand in virtue of their common responsibility for mission in that region which is theirs (cfr. Munich Document, III, 3, and Valamo Document, nn.52 and 53). Communion among Churches is expressed in the ordination of bishops. This ordination is conferred according to canonical order by three or more bishops, or at least two (cfr. Nicaea I, Canon 4), who act in the name of the episcopal body and of the people of God, having themselves received their ministry from the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands in the apostolic succession. When this is accomplished in conformity with the canons, communion among Churches in the true faith, sacraments and ecclesial life is ensured, as well as living communion with previous generations.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

The Patriarchal Catholic Eastern Church itself elects its bishops to serve within its own territory. The eastern Catholic Patriarchs are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and all other bishops of the Catholic Church.

***CCEO ***Canon 1811. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann. 947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law.

1. Other bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to cann. 149 and 168.

Canon 745Episcopal ordination is reserved according to the norm of law to the Roman Pontiff, patriarch or metropolitan, so that no other bishop is permitted to ordain anyone a bishop unless it is previously established that there is a legitimate mandate.

Canon 746

1. A bishop should be ordained by three bishops, except in case of extreme necessity.
2. The second and third bishop, if they cannot be bishops of the same Church sui iuris as the first ordaining bishop, can be of another Church sui iuris.

Canon 748

1. With regard to sacred ordination, for one who is enrolled in a certain eparchy, the proper eparchial bishop is the bishop of the eparchy in which the candidate has a domicile, or the eparchy in whose service the candidate declared in writing his desire to devote himself; with regard to the sacred ordination of one who is already enrolled in an eparchy, it is the bishop of that eparchy.
2. An eparchial bishop cannot ordain a candidate subject to him who is enrolled in another Church sui iuris without the permission of the Apostolic See; if, however, it is a case of a candidate who is enrolled in a patriarchal Church and has a domicile or quasi-domicile within the territorial boundaries of the same Church, the patriarch can also grant this permission.

 

[Seraphim73]

I think the point is that in the Latin Church the pope appoints the bishops.

 

[Richca]

An Eastern Orthodox acquaintance of mine is wanting to know, "The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome? "

I told him, “I’ll have to look into that one more. Sounds like, though, that was meant to be a general rule with one exception. Exceptions make the rule.”

He replied, “No, exceptions mean the rule doesn’t apply in that situation. There is no one exception in the canon, so how does that work?”

Can anyone tell me more about what the Fourth Canon of the first Ecumincal Council says, and what it means?

Thank you for your time and thought.

The primacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of St Peter is ultimately founded upon not on any decree of an ecumenical council but on the divine words and institution of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself who said to Peter
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 18-19).

 

[Seraphim73]

The primacy and universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome who is the successor of St Peter is ultimately founded upon not on any decree of an ecumenical council but on the divine words and institution of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ himself who said to Peter
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,* and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16: 18-19).

That’s not the question. The issue at hand is a canon from an ecumenical council, a council that was accepted by the entire Church including the pope, that seems on the surface to contradict current Catholic teaching and practice.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Seraphim, Vico, thank you both for your help. That information is exactly what I needed. And Seraphim, your signature is great.

 

[Seraphim73]

Seraphim, Vico, thank you both for your help. That information is exactly what I needed. And Seraphim, your signature is great.

Thanks! Milton was the man.

 

[Duane1966]

An Eastern Orthodox acquaintance of mine is wanting to know, "The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome? "

I told him, “I’ll have to look into that one more. Sounds like, though, that was meant to be a general rule with one exception. Exceptions make the rule.”

He replied, “No, exceptions mean the rule doesn’t apply in that situation. There is no one exception in the canon, so how does that work?”

Can anyone tell me more about what the Fourth Canon of the first Ecumincal Council says, and what it means?

Thank you for your time and thought.

Canon IV does not say that. Tell your friend the word only is not in canon IV, nor does the canon address jurisdictions.

 

[Duane1966]

That’s not the question. The issue at hand is a canon from an ecumenical council, a council that was accepted by the entire Church including the pope, that seems on the surface to contradict current Catholic teaching and practice.

Read the canon from your link. Nowhere is the word “only” in the canon as stated in the original post. The word “should” is used several times in Canon IV. Big difference between word should and word only. No contradiction.

P.S. Not telling you to read, saying I read in first sentence.

 

[Pound_Coolish]

Thanks! Milton was the man.

I just got a copy of Milton free from the library at my College. It looks interesting… complicated, but worth reading.

Duane, Of course, it’s important to quote things accurately. Still, does it really make all that much difference whether or not it says, “should”?

So, here’s what the orthodox fellow said in reply:

That only raises more questions, the earlier canons make it clear that only the local church will appoint and ordain bishops and if there are issues it goes to the Metropolitan, i.e. the head of the local synod. But then we see the Roman bishop in later canons give himself the power to ordain bishops as the norm, why the change? If Peter was the Rock and this was acknowledged in the Early Church why did it take until after the Seventh Ecumenical to make the change?

I really don’t know the context of that change, or even if there was a change. Thoughts?

 

[steve_b]

That’s not the question. The issue at hand is a canon from an ecumenical council, a council that was accepted by the entire Church including the pope, that seems on the surface to contradict current Catholic teaching and practice.

There is a further explanation to canon IV

Ancient Epitome of Canon IV.
A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least by three, the rest giving by letter their assent; but this choice must be confirmed by the Metropolitan.

Canon IV then, is making a distinction between rank and the authority level of bishops, and how far a particular bishop’s rank has reach. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html

Jesus didn’t put such restrictions on Peter.

As an aside, if one backs up one page to Canon III, that speaks of strict celebacy for the clergy, (deacon, priest, bishop, etc).

 

[twf]

That’s not the question. The issue at hand is a canon from an ecumenical council, a council that was accepted by the entire Church including the pope, that seems on the surface to contradict current Catholic teaching and practice.

It doesn’t contract Catholic teaching. Catholic doctrine doesn’t require the Pope to appoint local bishops - it is simply a matter of current canon law. Canon IV of the Council is, from a Catholic perspective, a disciplinary canon. The Church can and has changed disciplinary councils by Her divinely granted authority of binding and loosing. The Eastern Catholic Churches, at least those of patriarchal and major archepiscopal rank, still retain this ancient practice of episcopal elections by the local synod - the Latin Church’s discipline has evolved over the centuries. That being said, it is not like the Pope pulls a name out of a hat. There is significant local (name removed by moderator)ut. The Metropolitan Archbishop maintains a list of names provided by each bishop in the Province of suitable candidates for the episcopacy. The Apostolic Nuncio (Papal legate) in each country consults with the local bishops, and others, and draws up a terna of three names. The terna is then reviewed by the Congregation for Bishops in Rome which narrows down the list to a final candidate for papal approval.

That being said, I personally believe that the Latin Church has strayed too far from the ancient synodal model. Pope Francis has commented on this more than once since his election to the papal throne. He, like me, wishes to see the restoration of a stronger synodal culture in the Latin Church. The national episcopal conferences, which have become essential to the Latin Church’s governance since Vatican II, were a good step in the right direction, but I would like to see true provincial synods, under each metropolitan, return to the Latin Church and have greater (name removed by moderator)ut in the election of Latin bishops. Perhaps each provincial synod could provide a terna of three candidates ratification…

 

[Seraphim73]

It doesn’t contract Catholic teaching. Catholic doctrine doesn’t require the Pope to appoint local bishops - it is simply a matter of current canon law. Canon IV of the Council is, from a Catholic perspective, a disciplinary canon. The Church can and has changed disciplinary councils by Her divinely granted authority of binding and loosing. The Eastern Catholic Churches, at least those of patriarchal and major archepiscopal rank, still retain this ancient practice of episcopal elections by the local synod - the Latin Church’s discipline has evolved over the centuries. That being said, it is not like the Pope pulls a name out of a hat. There is significant local (name removed by moderator)ut. The Metropolitan Archbishop maintains a list of names provided by each bishop in the Province of suitable candidates for the episcopacy. The Apostolic Nuncio (Papal legate) in each country consults with the local bishops, and others, and draws up a terna of three names. The terna is then reviewed by the Congregation for Bishops in Rome which narrows down the list to a final candidate for papal approval.

That being said, I personally believe that the Latin Church has strayed too far from the ancient synodal model. Pope Francis has commented on this more than once since his election to the papal throne. He, like me, wishes to see the restoration of a stronger synodal culture in the Latin Church. The national episcopal conferences, which have become essential to the Latin Church’s governance since Vatican II, were a good step in the right direction, but I would like to see true provincial synods, under each metropolitan, return to the Latin Church and have greater (name removed by moderator)ut in the election of Latin bishops. Perhaps each provincial synod could provide a terna of three candidates ratification…

Well I’m not arguing one way or the other. This is your forum. I was just pointing out that Richca’s post didn’t address the OP. The first time I ever heard of this canon was when I read this thread.

 

[Duane1966]

There is a further explanation to canon IV

Ancient Epitome of Canon IV.
A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least by three, the rest giving by letter their assent; but this choice must be confirmed by the Metropolitan.

Canon IV then, is making a distinction between rank and the authority level of bishops, and how far a particular bishop’s rank has reach. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html

Jesus didn’t put such restrictions on Peter.

As an aside, if one backs up one page to Canon III, that speaks of strict celebacy for the clergy, (deacon, priest, bishop, etc).

Actually canon III does not say that.

 

[steve_b]

Actually canon III does not say that.

Ancient Epitome of Canon III. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.iv.html
No one shall have a woman in his house except his mother, and sister, and persons altogether beyond suspicion.

It doesn’t say wife is allowed. So what would you expect that to mean?

 

[Duane1966]

There is a further explanation to canon IV

Ancient Epitome of Canon IV.
A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least by three, the rest giving by letter their assent; but this choice must be confirmed by the Metropolitan.

Canon IV then, is making a distinction between rank and the authority level of bishops, and how far a particular bishop’s rank has reach. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html

Jesus didn’t put such restrictions on Peter.

As an aside, if one backs up one page to Canon III, that speaks of strict celebacy for the clergy, (deacon, priest, bishop, etc).

Ancient Epitome of Canon III. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.iv.html
No one shall have a woman in his house except his mother, and sister, and persons altogether beyond suspicion.

It doesn’t say wife is allowed. So what would you expect that to mean?

You only quote half the canon. This canon Is specifically addressing UNMARRIED women living with clergy and the scandal that people might perceive. There are two keys to this canon. One is the word subintroducta. That is basically an unmarried woman. The other key is the last part of the canon which states: or such persons as beyond all suspicion. Ergo, a wife would be beyond suspicion.

 

[sw85]

That’s not the question. The issue at hand is a canon from an ecumenical council, a council that was accepted by the entire Church including the pope, that seems on the surface to contradict current Catholic teaching and practice.

Councils cannot bind Popes on matters of discipline, at least not in Catholic theology. (Even past Popes cannot bind future ones on matters of discipline).

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

The issue at hand is a canon from an ecumenical council, a council that was accepted by the entire Church including the pope, that seems on the surface to contradict current Catholic teaching and practice.

The Petrine function is part of the Church’s divine constitution, while the notion of an ecumenical council a later non-scriptural innovation.

From the Catholic perspective the authority of an ecumenical council rests on its acceptance and ratification by the Holy Father.

.

 

[steve_b]

You only quote half the canon.

The entire canon was there to read.

This canon Is specifically addressing UNMARRIED women living with clergy and the scandal that people might perceive.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.iv.html

from that link, did you see this note regarding your point on subintroducta?

(all emphasis mine)

From

Hefele.
It is very certain that the canon of Nice forbids such spiritual unions, but the context shows moreover that the Fathers had not these particular cases in view alone; and the expression συνείσακτος should be understood of every woman who is introduced (συνείσακτος) into the house of a clergyman for the purpose of living there. If by the word συνείσακτος was only intended the wife in this spiritual marriage, the Council would not have said, any συνείσακτος, except his mother, etc.; for neither his mother nor his sister could have formed this spiritual union with the cleric. The injunction, then, does not merely forbid the συνείσακτος in the specific sense, but orders that “no woman must live in the house of a cleric, unless she be his mother,” etc.

About Hefele home.newadvent.org/cathen/07191a.htm
D:

There are two keys to this canon. One is the word subintroducta. That is basically an unmarried woman. The other key is the last part of the canon which states: or such persons as beyond all suspicion. Ergo, a wife would be beyond suspicion.

It would be nice if it had said wife, but it doesn’t . If wife is so obvious, (as Hefely points out) then wife would be put on the exception list, in the canon. The Catholic Church has looked at this canon as the call to celebacy for clergy.