So... who are the true bishops?

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
I think I prefer your way of putting it. I don’t see any reason to single out the Orthodox and focus on how to fix (?) them.

I quite agree. And in fact, I would say that Catholics never (well hardly ever) explicitly “single out the Orthodox and focus on how to fix them.”

But having said that, I have met many Catholics (especially on the internet) who say something along the same lines. For example, when speaking to Orthodox about the possibility of becoming Catholic*, any reasons for remaining Orthodox are referred to as “excuses for maintaining the schism”.

• “Catholic” (with a capital-C) here refers to being in the Roman Communion, i.e. being in full communion with the pope. No offense is intended toward the Polish National Catholic Church, the Anglican Catholic Church, etc. etc.

 

[achmafooma]

I think I prefer your way of putting it. I don’t see any reason to single out the Orthodox and focus on how to fix (?) them.

I can’t speak for any Catholic except myself…but I, for one, don’t see the Orthodox as being in need of ‘fixing.’ I think that both the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Churches will need to be willing to ‘give’ on certain key issues, at least to a point, in order to achieve reunification.

As for singling out the Orthodox over other Christian bodies, well, for me that’s a pragmatic thing because the Catholic and Orthodox churches are so close theologically and have fewer impediments to a full reunification than pretty much any other group of Christians.

I had a conversation with a Protestant in my family about Christian reunification and he basically told me, “If the Catholics and Orthodox can’t get back together, there’s probably no hope for any other denomination.” I don’t think it’s quite so grim myself, BUT a Catholic/Orthodox reunification would go a long way toward opening other groups’ eyes to the possibility and ‘grease the wheels’ for other reunifications.

And of course, the best thing any of us can do is PRAY for Christian unity.

 

[Peter_J]

I can’t speak for any Catholic except myself…but I, for one, don’t see the Orthodox as being in need of ‘fixing.’ I think that both the Catholic Church and various Orthodox Churches will need to be willing to ‘give’ on certain key issues, at least to a point, in order to achieve reunification.

Hi achmafooma. You have an interesting take on it, although I’m not sure if I understand it. Does this mean that you’re equally sympathetic towards someone moving from Catholicism-to-Orthodoxy and someone moving from Orthodoxy-to-Catholicism?

 

[Zekariya]

I do not foresee one Patriarch of Antioch over the Greeks and the Syrians. The Orthodox and the Catholics are used to having bishops’ jurisdictions overlapping.

If a reunion happens, I believe that the Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch will share one patriarch and the Syriac Catholic and Syriac Orthodox Churches of Antioch will share one patriarch. These are two very different Rites and traditions. I can’t imagine the Syriacs wanting to be under a Greek patriarch (and visa versa) anymore than Eastern Catholics wanting to be under a Latin bishop.

If the canons of the Holy Ecumenical Council of Nicaea can be changed to allow Constantinople to be second to Rome, surely something can be worked out with Antioch’s situation of overlapping patriarchs.

 

[Contarini]

I do not foresee one Patriarch of Antioch over the Greeks and the Syrians. The Orthodox and the Catholics are used to having bishops’ jurisdictions overlapping.
:

Yes, but surely they shouldn’t be. It’s a highly irregular situation. All the baptized in one place should be gathered under one bishop. The fact that neither Catholics nor Orthodox seem to care about this principle (but the Orthodox, if anything, seem more willing to recognize it’s a problem than the Catholics) has long been a stumbling block for me. It’s as central in the patristic testimony, it seems to me, as other things that Catholics and Orthodox insist upon loudly.

 

[Zekariya]

Yes, but surely they shouldn’t be. It’s a highly irregular situation. All the baptized in one place should be gathered under one bishop. The fact that neither Catholics nor Orthodox seem to care about this principle (but the Orthodox, if anything, seem more willing to recognize it’s a problem than the Catholics) has long been a stumbling block for me. It’s as central in the patristic testimony, it seems to me, as other things that Catholics and Orthodox insist upon loudly.

It is a deviation from patristic practice but not a deviation of patristic doctrine of morals. The elevation of Constantinople as second to Rome is a deviation of the First Ecumenical Council. Certainly a degree of economia would be applicable in the case of a major reunion of Churches.

 

[Contarini]

It is a deviation from patristic practice but not a deviation of patristic doctrine of morals. The elevation of Constantinople as second to Rome is a deviation of the First Ecumenical Council. Certainly a degree of economia would be applicable in the case of a major reunion of Churches.

I can accept that it doesn’t invalidate the claims to truth of the Catholics and/or Orthodox, but not that it’s OK.

It seems to me that the oikonomia we need is an oikonomia koine hos oikos theou, not concessions to our schismatic habits.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Yes, but surely they shouldn’t be. It’s a highly irregular situation. All the baptized in one place should be gathered under one bishop. The fact that neither Catholics nor Orthodox seem to care about this principle (but the Orthodox, if anything, seem more willing to recognize it’s a problem than the Catholics) has long been a stumbling block for me. .

I suppose … but, of course, the Orthodox didn’t have Archbishop Ireland to deal with.

 

[Zekariya]

I can accept that it doesn’t invalidate the claims to truth of the Catholics and/or Orthodox, but not that it’s OK.

It seems to me that the oikonomia we need is an oikonomia koine hos oikos theou, not concessions to our schismatic habits.

Edwin

I see that you are Episcopalian. Why does it matter to you if we have overlapping bishops? You can’t just selectively choose some patristics things to practice and others to reject. You take issue with a disciplinary practice being violated but your own Communion is far away from ancient Christian doctrines and morality.

 

[Peter_J]

You can’t just selectively choose some patristics things to practice and others to reject.

I think that’s what Contrarini is saying.

 

[Contarini]

I see that you are Episcopalian. Why does it matter to you if we have overlapping bishops? You can’t just selectively choose some patristics things to practice and others to reject. You take issue with a disciplinary practice being violated but your own Communion is far away from ancient Christian doctrines and morality.

This is the tu quoque fallacy. I’m not suggesting that Anglicanism is a preferable alternative.

I’m pointing out that overlapping jurisdictions isn’t acceptable by the ancient Church’s understanding of what unity means.

Edwin

 

[Zekariya]

This is the tu quoque fallacy. I’m not suggesting that Anglicanism is a preferable alternative.

I’m pointing out that overlapping jurisdictions isn’t acceptable by the ancient Church’s understanding of what unity means.

Edwin

I was not suggesting that you suggested that. Overlapping jurisdictions is a speck compared to the log that is female ordination, homosexual relations, etc. My question is, why do you care so much for the ancient disciplinary practices and yet remain in a Communion that rejects the ancient doctrines and morals of the Church?

 

[Peter_J]

My question is, why do you care so much for the ancient disciplinary practices and yet remain in a Communion that rejects the ancient doctrines and morals of the Church?

I think Contarini has explained before that he isn’t interested in the ACNA, Continuing Anglicans, PNCC, etc. However, I fear that I wouldn’t repeat the explanation properly…

 

[Contarini]

I was not suggesting that you suggested that. Overlapping jurisdictions is a speck compared to the log that is female ordination, homosexual relations, etc. My question is, why do you care so much for the ancient disciplinary practices and yet remain in a Communion that rejects the ancient doctrines and morals of the Church?

Because unity in Christ iis the center of what the Church is about. That doesn’t change. How we interpret issues of gender and sexuality may change–no Christian church in fact thinks about these things as ancient Christians did, though the Orthodox probably come closest and that isn’t a particularly good thing:shrug:. Given the choice within American Anglicanism between one body (TEC) that takes unity seriously but has engaged in dubious innovations on sexuality, and one (ACNA) that doesn’t care about unity but has a more conservative stance on sexuality, I’ll go with the former.

As a matter of fact I disagree with the leadership of TEC on homosexuality (as does my bishop) and I am willing to submit myself to the Church on women’s ordination, and indeed on everything else. Which simply underlines the point that you are using the tu quoque fallacy to distract from the fact that overlapping jurisdictions are unjustified.

Edwin

 

[Zekariya]

I have already admitted that overlapping jurisdictions is incorrect. I asked you that question out of curiosity. I had no intent to distract from that topic.

 

[Contarini]

I have already admitted that overlapping jurisdictions is incorrect. I asked you that question out of curiosity. I had no intent to distract from that topic.

I apologize for my snippy response.

The fact is that I intend to become Catholic–I am about to move and am going to contact the local parish as soon as I do so.

However, one reason (or at least excuse) it’s taken me so long, in spite of the evident problems with Anglicanism ecclesiologically, is that the claims of Rome and Orthodoxy are hard to adjudicate. My Catholic friends insist that they have more unity than the Orthodox, and the overlapping jurisdictions issue has always been something that I have thought militated against that claim.

At the same time, my strong commitment to the local unity of the Church (not just of Anglicanism) also makes it hard to be Anglican. I am a member of a small congregation just up the road from two large Catholic parishes (why are there two? The answer is, ethnic rivalries in the 19th century–another puncture in the inflated claims of unity many Catholic apologists make vis-a-vis the Orthodox!). A couple of years ago our priest told his dwindling congregation that God wants there to be Anglicans in our town. And I had to ask myself, why? What is our mission exactly? We’re clearly setting up altar against altar.

So this issue really is key for me, and I am not claiming that it provides me with an excuse to be Anglican–quite the contrary.

Edwin

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Contarini,

Which simply underlines the point that you are using the tu quoque fallacy to distract from the fact that overlapping jurisdictions are unjustified.

I agree with you that overlapping jurisdictions are unjustified. But I am not aware that there is such a thing in the Catholic Church. A Melkite Catholic in a geographical region, for instance, does not have two bishops - the local Latin bishop and the Melkite bishop. Rather, he only has one bishop, the Melkite Catholic bishop.

Unless you can show that any individual Catholic is under more than one proper bishop, then I fail to understand how the Catholic Church can be accused of having “overlapping jurisdictions.”

I know that the traditional idea of “jurisdiction” refers to “territorial jurisdiction,” but this is a matter of canon law that can (admittedly and naturally) change with the circumstances and needs of the Church. In the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the idea of “PERSONAL jurisdiction” as distinct from “TERRITORIAL jurisdiction” exists. Here we need to apply the SPIRIT of the law, instead of the LETTER of the law. The spirit of the law asserts that no individual Christian can be under more than one proper bishop. This law has been consistently maintained by the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, even if more than one bishop might exist in a certain geographical region.

FYI, the Oriental Orthodox Churches actually had to deal with this issue several centuries before the matter arose within the Catholic Church. It’s a matter of oikonomia as others have pointed out.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Because unity in Christ iis the center of what the Church is about. That doesn’t change. How we interpret issues of gender and sexuality may change–no Christian church in fact thinks about these things as ancient Christians did,** though the Orthodox probably come closest and that isn’t a particularly good thing:shrug:. **

Now now :tsktsk: that’s really subjective. They would assuredly say that it is a good thing.

Given the choice within American Anglicanism between one body (TEC) that takes unity seriously but has engaged in dubious innovations on sexuality, and one (ACNA) that doesn’t care about unity but has a more conservative stance on sexuality, I’ll go with the former.

Hmmm … I’ve not known you to take cheap shots like that.

 

[Contarini]

Dear brother Contarini,

I agree with you that overlapping jurisdictions are unjustified. But I am not aware that there is such a thing in the Catholic Church. A Melkite Catholic in a geographical region, for instance, does not have two bishops - the local Latin bishop and the Melkite bishop. Rather, he only has one bishop, the Melkite Catholic bishop.

Unless you can show that any individual Catholic is under more than one proper bishop, then I fail to understand how the Catholic Church can be accused of having “overlapping jurisdictions.”

I know that the traditional idea of “jurisdiction” refers to “territorial jurisdiction,” but this is a matter of canon law that can (admittedly and naturally) change with the circumstances and needs of the Church. In the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, the idea of “PERSONAL jurisdiction” as distinct from “TERRITORIAL jurisdiction” exists. Here we need to apply the SPIRIT of the law, instead of the LETTER of the law. The spirit of the law asserts that no individual Christian can be under more than one proper bishop. This law has been consistently maintained by the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, even if more than one bishop might exist in a certain geographical region.

FYI, the Oriental Orthodox Churches actually had to deal with this issue several centuries before the matter arose within the Catholic Church. It’s a matter of oikonomia as others have pointed out.

Blessings,
Marduk

The distinction more or less amounts to “denominationalism” within the Catholic Church. All baptized Christians in a given place should gather around the same altar. That is clear in the Fathers. Anything less than that is a corruption and an abuse. There shouldn’t be any picking and choosing, and there certainly shouldn’t be ethnic divisions, which is essentially what the “sui juris churches” are.

And yes, this applies to the Latin custom of having multiple Masses for the same Sunday/feast day.

I understand why Eastern/Oriental Catholics want these distinctions, given how they’ve been treated historically. I’d be happy if all the Latins became Melkites. But unity is central, and unity means more than signing the same doctrinal statements or even being in communion with the Pope. It has to do with whether two neighbors worship together on a Sunday or not.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Now now :tsktsk: that’s really subjective. They would assuredly say that it is a good thing.

It’s not subjective. The preservation of ancient misogyny is objectively a bad thing.

Hmmm … I’ve not known you to take cheap shots like that.

It’s not a cheap shot. It’s my observation. They really don’t. They care about, in their way of thinking, spreading the Gospel. They have a basically American Protestant understanding of what that means, and they pride themselves in their dynamism and their church planting, with absolutely no concern for whether they are dividing the local Body of Christ by so doing. They don’t have any problem with parallel jurisdictions. They look on all that sort of thing as legalistic fluff. They have very little ecclesiology that I can see.

Edwin