On Canon 6 of Nicea I

[fwon2638]

I have the following questions:

1. The Canon firstly states that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. What does the word “jurisdiction” mean? Does that mean the Patriach have certain adminstrative powers over those countries?
2. The Canon then says that no one can be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan. Clearly from this sentence, the consent from the head bishop is needed. However, the last sentence of the Canon goes on to say that “If, however, two or three bishop shall from the natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.” Now does this last sentence of the Canon qualify the requirement of the head bishop’s consent (so that the view of the majority prevails over the head bishop)? If so, isn’t the canon contradicting itself?

Francis

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Francis,

I have the following questions:

1. The Canon firstly states that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis. What does the word “jurisdiction” mean? Does that mean the Patriach have certain adminstrative powers over those countries?
2. The Canon then says that no one can be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan. Clearly from this sentence, the consent from the head bishop is needed. However, the last sentence of the Canon goes on to say that “If, however, two or three bishop shall from the natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.” Now does this last sentence of the Canon qualify the requirement of the head bishop’s consent (so that the view of the majority prevails over the head bishop)? If so, isn’t the canon contradicting itself?

Since ancient times, it has been a given according to the apostolic canon (#35 according to the Greek, #34 according to the Latin), that the consent of the 1) the head bishop, and 2) the BODY of the rest of the bishops, is required for an act that has relevance for the entire Church. The apostolic canon referred to the universal Church. In the fourth century, the Church formally applied the model to smaller areas of jurisdiction (i.e., the Patriarchal see and the Metropolitan See).

The questions you ask reflect the natural application of the apostolic canon. Aside from the specific consent of the head bishop, the consent of the body of bishops is also needed. The second part of your second question has specific relevance to the body of bishops (distinct from the head bishop). It is merely saying that if two or three bishops in that body disagree with the election, their objection is of no force - that is, the majority voice of the body of bishops prevails.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fwon2638]

Is it possible to have a situation where there is a disagreement between the head bishop and the college of bishop (that is the majority of his brother bishops)? If so, how would the disagreement be resolved?

Thanks for your insight as always!

Francis

 

[Aramis]

Is it possible to have a situation where there is a disagreement between the head bishop and the college of bishop (that is the majority of his brother bishops)? If so, how would the disagreement be resolved?

Thanks for your insight as always!

Francis

In traditional Byzantine ecclesiology, the rule seems to be the head of the synod giving in to universal decisions of the rest of the synod, and often giving assent to clear majority decisions.

In a few odd cases, specifically where the synod has chosen to retire or even depose the head bishop, the protosynchellus of the Particular Church or the senior most remaining member of the synod promulgates it… but few accept it until the primate (in the case of a metropolitan synod within a catholicosate or patriarchate) or the churches of the communion publicly endorse the action.

Catholics would have appeal to their primate, and then rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Francis,

Is it possible to have a situation where there is a disagreement between the head bishop and the college of bishop (that is the majority of his brother bishops)? If so, how would the disagreement be resolved?

Thanks for your insight as always!

Ideally, there would be constant communication between the head bishop and the rest of the bishops until the impasse could be resolved.

There are two circumstances that we need to consider:
(1) The case of an Ecumenical Council
(2) The case of a patriarchal/Metropolitan See.

Under these headings, there are two subheadings: (a) the case of a canon, and (b) the case of doctrine.

Within an Ecumenical Council, in the case of canons, the disagreement of the head bishop (the Pope) would simply give the canon a non-obligatory status. This means that there is no ecclesiastical penalty attached to following or rejecting the canon. Some may follow it, and others may not, and it would not affect the unity of the Church either way.

Within an Ecumenical Council, in the case of doctrine, there is no question of disagreement. Our Faith tells us that an Ecumenical Council is especially protected by God with infallibility. Hence, an Ecumenical Council will never fail for want of consensus in a matter of doctrine. Even if there was an impasse, and even if it takes some time, a truly Ecumenical Council will never have want of consensus between the head bishop and the rest of his brother bishops, by virtue of the invisible and incomprehensible action of the Holy Spirit.

Within Patriarchal or Metropolitan Synods, the same ideal constancy of communication applies.

In the case of canons or discipline, if there was an insurmountable impasse on the Metropolitan level, any member of the Metropolitan Synod can appeal to the Patriarch or to the Pope (for Metropolical Sees not attached to a Patriarchate). If there was an insurmountable impasse on the Patriarchal level, the case may be appealed to the Pope with permission from the Patriarch.

In the case of doctrine, the same steps would apply as for canons or discipline, except that no permission is needed from the Patriarch for any bishop to appeal to the Pope.

On a side note. I am not sure about my fellow apostolic Christians, and this may be only a matter of academic preference to some (or many) but I believe it is not proper to refer to “the head bishop AND the college of bishops.” In truth, the term “college of bishops” INHERENTLY includes the head bishop. There is no conceivable college of bishops without its head. This is only of concern to me because I too often hear the unfounded criticism that the Pope is a wholly separate authority from the college. In the same way, I often commonly hear the expression “The Pope AND the Ecumenical Council” as if the term “Ecumenical Council” was a body without a head. It is just strange to me that many Catholics often speak in this way. I think we need to live and breathe what we believe, and this should be reflected in our regular language.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

In traditional Byzantine ecclesiology, the rule seems to be the head of the synod giving in to universal decisions of the rest of the synod, and often giving assent to clear majority decisions.

In a few odd cases, specifically where the synod has chosen to retire or even depose the head bishop, the protosynchellus of the Particular Church or the senior most remaining member of the synod promulgates it… but few accept it until the primate (in the case of a metropolitan synod within a catholicosate or patriarchate) or the churches of the communion publicly endorse the action.

Catholics would have appeal to their primate, and then rome.

I do not write this by way of correction AT ALL, but just for information for others, as I have no doubt you are already aware of it. Our Catholic Canons state that we should apply our own particular customs in executing the Code.

In the Oriental Tradition, synodal deposition of head bishops is not customary, especially of Patriarchs. In recent memory, the Synod of the Eritrean (Oriental) Orthodox Church deposed its Patriarch. This was not taken lightly by any of the Oriental Churches, and the Eritrean Orthodox Church is currently not in communion with any Oriental Orthodox Church. A Patriarch may only be deposed for three reasons according to Oriental Tradition -1) heresy; 2) mismanagement of Church funds; 3) mental illness.

In the Eastern Tradition, it seems deposition of a head bishop is more customary (“customary” not in the sense that it is often done, but that it is done with more regularity than the Oriental Tradition). Am I correct in assuming that in the Eastern Tradition, a Patriarch may be deposed for more reasons than the ones given for the Oriental Tradition?

Blessings,
Marduk