Synod of Bishops

[twf]

Pope Francis has indicated that he wishes to see the general Synod of Bishops, established after Vatican II, mature and come into its own (hopefully in time acting as a true synod and not simply as an advisory body?). He’s also hinted that he would like to see greater autonomy granted to the national episcopal conferences (perhaps paving the pay, in time, for the resurrection of the national synods in the West, as continues to exist in the East?). Have any of our Eastern brothers been following these comments? I would think that these developments would be absolutely essential in terms of our relations with the Orthodox Churches.

 

[Zekariya]

Pope Francis has indicated that he wishes to see the general Synod of Bishops, established after Vatican II, mature and come into its own (hopefully in time acting as a true synod and not simply as an advisory body?). He’s also hinted that he would like to see greater autonomy granted to the national episcopal conferences (perhaps paving the pay, in time, for the resurrection of the national synods in the West, as continues to exist in the East?). Have any of our Eastern brothers been following these comments? I would think that these developments would be absolutely essential in terms of our relations with the Orthodox Churches.

Those who desire for reunion will be pleased with changes towards a more Eastern practice. Those who do not desire reunion will not be pleased with any amount of change towards a more Eastern practice. Those who desire for reunion will not reunite at the cost of losing those who do not desire reunion.

 

[Denho]

Pope Francis has… hinted that he would like to see greater autonomy granted to the national episcopal conferences (perhaps paving the pay, in time, for the resurrection of the national synods in the West, as continues to exist in the East?).

If they do then I pray that the Eastern Bishops in the US free themselves from any official membership in the USCCB. We are already yoked to the spineless and incomprehensible babble that comes out of the USCCB in many ways and if they are given any actual authority I shudder as to what damage could be done to our Churches.

 

[MorEphrem]

If they do then I pray that the Eastern Bishops in the US free themselves from any official membership in the USCCB. We are already yoked to the spineless and incomprehensible babble that comes out of the USCCB in many ways and if they are given any actual authority I shudder as to what damage could be done to our Churches.

Amen to this in so many ways. The USCCB has a vice-grip on our bishops so hard they impose the Latin liturgical calendar and liturgical dispensations over our own . Not to mention our use of their translation of the creed and the whole bit, it infuriates me to no end.

I don’t like the idea of national conferences and I certainly hope the Church does not move towards empowering them. No offense to the Byzantines but the greatest weakness I see in their episcopal structures is their ethnocentric synods.

 

[malphono]

Denho;11122441:

If they do then I pray that the Eastern Bishops in the US free themselves from any official membership in the USCCB. We are already yoked to the spineless and incomprehensible babble that comes out of the USCCB in many ways and if they are given any actual

authority I shudder as to what damage could be done to our Churches.

Amen to this in so many ways. The USCCB has a vice-grip on our bishops so hard they impose the Latin liturgical calendar and liturgical dispensations over our own . Not to mention our use of their translation of the creed and the whole bit, it infuriates me to no end.

I agree in principle, of course, but fat chance of any of it happening. And truth to tell, the “vice grip” on our bishops is self-imposed.

I don’t like the idea of national conferences and I certainly hope the Church does not move towards empowering them.

The old Western model (first millennium) of Primatial Sees with some autonomy was much better. It was, in fact, quite similar to the Synodal structure of the East/Orient. But of course what little remained, after having been eroded time and time again in favor of Rome’s hierarchical structure, was killed in place in the post-conciliar era. Now there are these silly “national conferences” …

No offense to the Byzantines but the greatest weakness I see in their episcopal structures is their ethnocentric synods.

That is one of the major problems of the Moscow-inspired “National Patriarchate Syndrome” which has become the rule among the Slav Byzantines. IMHO, the Constasntinopolitan model is **far **superior.

 

[malphono]

Pope Francis has indicated that he wishes to see the general Synod of Bishops, established after Vatican II, mature and come into its own (hopefully in time acting as a true synod and not simply as an advisory body?).

That would amount to a perpetual “Oecumenical Council” (at least a “Council” as defined by Rome) and will never happen. It’s unworkable.

He’s also hinted that he would like to see greater autonomy granted to the national episcopal conferences (perhaps paving the pay, in time, for the resurrection of the national synods in the West, as continues to exist in the East?).

If there had been any mention of reinvigorating the Primatial Sees (ref my previous post), this might be interesting. But of course there has not been. FWLIW I am, have been, and will remain opposed to these “democratic” so-called “national conferences.”

Have any of our Eastern brothers been following these comments? I would think that these developments would be absolutely essential in terms of our relations with the Orthodox Churches.

I would imagine it wouldn’t have one iota of effect on that.

 

[twf]

That would amount to a perpetual “Oecumenical Council” (at least a “Council” as defined by Rome) and will never happen. It’s unworkable.

If there had been any mention of reinvigorating the Primatial Sees (ref my previous post), this might be interesting. But of course there has not been. FWLIW I am, have been, and will remain opposed to these “democratic” so-called “national conferences.”

I would imagine it wouldn’t have one iota of effect on that.

I imagine what he has in mind is a synod that meets more frequently (perhaps a few times a year rather than once every few years) comprised of only a representative portion of the global episcopate. I believe that could be workable.

I strongly agree in regards to the Primatial Sees / national synods - but isn’t any degree of national autonomy, and a more devolved form of papal / Roman government a step in the right direction from an Orthodox perspective? I agree that the bishops “democratically” electing a President rather than simply forming a synod under the traditional Primate is novel…but I would think the Orthodox, and East in general, would appreciate the local bishops governing their own affairs with reduced influence from a central government in Rome.

 

[MorEphrem]

…but I would think the Orthodox, and East in general, would appreciate the local bishops governing their own affairs with reduced influence from a central government in Rome.

I think national autonomy will please the Byzantine Churches.

 

[malphono]

I imagine what he has in mind is a synod that meets more frequently (perhaps a few times a year rather than once every few years) comprised of only a representative portion of the global episcopate. I believe that could be workable.

That sounds suspiciously like a “representative assembly” where the reps are “democratically elected” from this place and that. So what would be the result? Majority rule? Would there next be ecclesiastical parties? Who would elect (or select, as the case may be) the representatives? You see where I’m going with this. I really don’t believe such a system would work at all.

I strongly agree in regards to the Primatial Sees / national synods - but isn’t any degree of national autonomy, and a more devolved form of papal / Roman government a step in the right direction from an Orthodox perspective? I agree that the bishops “democratically” electing a President rather than simply forming a synod under the traditional Primate is novel…but I would think the Orthodox, and East in general, would appreciate the local bishops governing their own affairs with reduced influence from a central government in Rome.

If the prerogatives and semi-autonomy of the Primatial Sees were to be restored, I would say yes. But with the current system – and even (or perhaps especially) with an expansion of it – I doubt it would be viewed as a particularly positive development, precisely because of the novelty of the idea.

I think national autonomy will please the Byzantine Churches.

Personally I would qualify that to refer to those who follow the MP-model of “National Patriarchates” rather than “Byzantines” in general. To me, at least, the Constantinopolitan model is preferable. Look at Cyprus, e.g, which is the oldest autocephalous Church. To this day it is headed by an Archbishop-Primate.

 

[twf]

That sounds suspiciously like a “representative assembly” where the reps are “democratically elected” from this place and that. So what would be the result? Majority rule? Would there next be ecclesiastical parties? Who would elect (or select, as the case may be) the representatives? You see where I’m going with this. I really don’t believe such a system would work at all.

If the prerogatives and semi-autonomy of the Primatial Sees were to be restored, I would say yes. But with the current system – and even (or perhaps especially) with an expansion of it – I doubt it would be viewed as a particularly positive development, precisely because of the novelty of the idea.

But wait a second…correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that a number of the Orthodox Churches were governed by a standing synod comprised of a representative number of bishops, with full synods only held when necessary… what am I missing? What would be different? (The ROC comes to mind - I’m 99% certain they have a standing representative synod - but I’m not sure how those members are selected).
You’re probably right that it would become a “democratic” process, but if it was up to me, I would support a standing representative synod, supporting the Pope in universal governance, copmrised of perhaps each metropolitan (or equivalent).

 

[Aramis]

But wait a second…correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that a number of the Orthodox Churches were governed by a standing synod comprised of a representative number of bishops, with full synods only held when necessary… what am I missing? What would be different? (The ROC comes to mind - I’m 99% certain they have a standing representative synod - but I’m not sure how those members are selected).
You’re probably right that it would become a “democratic” process, but if it was up to me, I would support a standing representative synod, supporting the Pope in universal governance, copmrised of perhaps each metropolitan (or equivalent).

Their synod is, as with all orthopraxic churches, just the bishops. But they are ruled by the Sobor, not the Synod.

The Sobor consists of the Synod, and selected clergy representatives, and selected laymen. The synod, according to their own literature, serves as the upper house as well - actions must pass the whole sobor, and the synod; I’m not certain if it’s in a single voting or not.

The OCA uses a Sobor process, but calls it a “council” (citation) It is, per their canon statutes:
[Art. III §2] Composition
a. The Metropolitan and all bishops of the Church;
b. The priests of each parish and an equal number of lay delegates;
c. Priests not having parishes if accredited by the Metropolitan Council;
d. One lay delegate from each parish not having a priest;
e. The members and the alternate members of the Metropolitan Council, and the members of the Auditing Committee of the Church;
f. Two delegates from each theological seminary;
g. Members of the Pre-Conciliar Commission;
h. One representative of each Church organization officially accredited by the Holy Synod;
i. Additional persons may be invited by the Pre-Conciliar Commission with the approval of the Metropolitan to attend one or more sessions of the All-American Council, without the right to vote. Members of preparatory committees may be invited to attend and participate in the discussions of the subject upon which their committees report to the All-American Council;
j. All lay members of the All-American Council shall have the same qualifications for membership as the parish delegates (Cf. Article III, Section 6).
(citation)

The Sobor elects the standing “Metropolitan Council” reps “It consists of the Metropolitan as Chairman, the Chancellor, the Secretary, the Treasurer, two representatives from each diocese, one priest and one layman elected by the Diocesan Assemblies, three priests and three laymen elected by the All-American Council. Vacancies occurring among diocesan representatives are filled by the respective dioceses.” - and there’s a 2 term limit. (citation)

 

[twf]

So it appears that at least the Slavic Orthodox Churches already use a “democratic” model akin to what Malphono fears ?

 

[janeway529]

I think Pope Benedict XVI held a Synod of Bishops for the Middle East and most of the participating bishops were Eastern Bishops, some of whom were meeting for the first time.

 

[rciadan]

Moscow-inspired “National Patriarchate Syndrome” which has become the rule among the Slav Byzantines.

 

[malphono]

malphono;11122581:

Moscow-inspired “National Patriarchate Syndrome” which has become the rule among the Slav Byzantines. …

IMHO, the Constantinopolitan model is far superior

Please, for the less knowledgeable such as myself, explain what these two phrases mean?

The history of the Byzantine Churches is not my area of expertise, but I’ll say that I think it was sometime in the 16th century that Moscow, which had been recognized as autocephalous, unilaterally declared itself a “Patriarchate” and it took some time before this action was recognized by Constantinople (and even then, the recognition was more for political reasons than anything else). From that developed what I usually call “National Patriarchate Syndrome” among the Slav Byzantines and those under their sway. Hence we have a Ukrainian Patriarchate (actually two, one very firmly under Moscow’s control and one that favors Constantinople), a Bulgarian (replete with its unusual history and many stories of non-recognition), a Romanian, and a Serbian (and I may have missed one or more).

The Constantinopolitan model is much simpler: a Church that is recognized as autocephalous is headed by an Archbishop-Primate, as is the case in Cyrpus, which was recognized as such, IIRC, by the Council of Ephesus, making it the first.

That’s for starters. For more detail, a little google will, I think, help here.