Posted on 12/01/2005 8:23:17 PM PST by dangus
Having read the link to the Ecumenical Patriarchate I now understand your warning. It seems to indicate that the Ecumenical Patriarch was operating on his own authority in the recognition of the new autocephalous churches rather than working through the synod. Does not this contradict your explanation that a patriarch's only unique authority is that of presiding over the synod with only one vote as have the other bishops? It also seems (and I admit my lack of knowledge about the history) that he is trying to give a theological explanation to what was in reality Constantinople's reluctant acceptance of the independence of these churches that had originally been resisted. Am I reading this wrong?
"It seems to indicate that the Ecumenical Patriarch was operating on his own authority in the recognition of the new autocephalous churches rather than working through the synod."
Actually, they have over the centuries acted through their synods, which for a very long time under the Ottomans was made up of Patriarchs from Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria among others. Agter that period he has acted in convert still with the Synod of his See.
The reason I cautioned you is because the piece from the Patriarchate presents a picture of the authority of the EP which is not necessarily accepted by the other Patriarchs, especially Russia, which has since the Fall of Constantinople professed to be the Third Rome. To this day the EP is accused of having pretentions to an Eastern Papacy by some in the Church.
"It also seems (and I admit my lack of knowledge about the history) that he is trying to give a theological explanation to what was in reality Constantinople's reluctant acceptance of the independence of these churches that had originally been resisted. Am I reading this wrong?"
No, you are not wrong at all. In many instances, that is precisely the sort of post hoc, propter hoc sort of reasoning Constantinople has put forth in explaining these seizures of autocephally. In some cases, however, like with Albania to cite a recent example, the theological explanation is exactly the appropriate one. The same was true, I think, with Serbia and after a very long time, with Russia. The reasons for not granting autocephally to the GOA or recognizing de jure the autocephally of the OCA are also well grounded in theology.
So when the article was speaking of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch was this short-hand for the patriarch working in synod rather than, as I had read it, him working alone and on his own authority as patriarch? Thus is the unique authority that is claimed in the article that of the synod and not of the person of the patriarch?
A[f]ter that period he has acted in con[c]ert still with the Synod of his See.
Do you mean his see as bishop of Constantinople or the entire patriarchate?
I wold say both. The EP uses his prestigeous position as the Bishop of Constantinople, and first in honor among Orthodox Patriarchs, to influence and to generate initiatives, but he cannot bypass the Synod, nor can he, sua sponte, declare anything as binding.
1) If someone thought his local bishop was abusing his position is there a course of appeal? Would he appeal to the a) local diocesan synod; b) the metropolitan/patriarchal synod; or c) the metropolitan/patriarch?
2) If one bishop thought another was teaching heresy would he a) excommunicate him, b) only break communion with him (could this be done by an individual bishop without support of either his synod or metropolitan/patriarch?), or c) bring charges before either the synod or metropolitan/synod?
3) Could a synod or metropolitan/patriarch break communion with a bishop of another autocephalous church without breaking communion with the entire church?
4) If communion were broken with another bishop, what would be the status of the members of the church under that bishop? Would the break of communion be with the entire church and its members or is it only personal with the bishops involved?
"1) If someone thought his local bishop was abusing his position is there a course of appeal? Would he appeal to the a) local diocesan synod; b) the metropolitan/patriarchal synod; or c) the metropolitan/patriarch?"
Abusing his position how?
"2) If one bishop thought another was teaching heresy would he a) excommunicate him, b) only break communion with him (could this be done by an individual bishop without support of either his synod or metropolitan/patriarch?), or c) bring charges before either the synod or metropolitan/synod?"
I doubt a bishop would excommunicate another bishop sua sponte, though I suppose he could. I suspect the matter would begin with the synod. Excommunication is quite rare as the Latins would understand it.
"3) Could a synod or metropolitan/patriarch break communion with a bishop of another autocephalous church without breaking communion with the entire church?"
I don't think it would happen that way. Communion would be broken with the entire particular church.
"4) If communion were broken with another bishop, what would be the status of the members of the church under that bishop? Would the break of communion be with the entire church and its members or is it only personal with the bishops involved?"
Communion is something which defines relationships between bishops. If my bishop is out of communion with your bishop, I can't receive the sacraments in your church. As laity, we are members of a particular church under particular bishops. Our relationships with the laity of other churches are through them, not directly with each other.
I think Kolo aswered your questions, so no need for me to re-state the same answers.
There was NO new testament for many years.
THE Church used oral communication along with the Holy Spirit. There HAD to be leaders that had authority. Jesus HAD to give this to those apostles to lead the church. WE all cannot interpret. The bible and the truths have been kept safe by THE Church. There have been errors but without THE Church holding on to these truths the church would have fallen. They kept it for hundreds of years. Jesus said I Will Build My Church and the Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail..some rebellious catholics wanted things there way and rebelled...causing the mess we have today.....instead of praying and waiting on God.....we still would have One Church which would please the Lord. Now protestants all interpret what THEY think it means. It is a mess. It causes confusion...Everyone says MY Church is THE ONE..Yeah right......Think of our own country IF the people each indiviually interpreted all of the laws...to please what they FELT?? There would be no order. (not that we have alot of order now) but atleast it is still held together.......I am standing for the FIRST ORIGINAL OLDEST Church THE Church....If they have displeased the Lord.......THEY will answer to Him..but atleast we are still trying to have ONE faith...ONE baptism.......ONE Lord.......not thousands of mixed up churches with confused people in them......God gave those letters to teach and help the church understand...not to become the ONLY doctrine. It is oral tradition and the bible.....Know what Protestant means? Heretic catholics who left THE Church and went out on their own following a man..(Luther) He had some good points, but he did not know what he was starting... it got out of hand....God hates rebellion.....Thanks Ren
I went to a co-ed Catholic school and I remember in fourth garde, Sister Colette drew a picture on the board of a very large ocean liner and a tiny little rowboat. She said that the baptized Catholics were all aboard the large ship, sailing to our eternal reward of heaven. All non-catholics were in the tiny boats. It was theoretically possible for them to make it to heaven, but not likely.
When I was about 30, I was dating a JEWISH attorney..a big Catholic no, no.
Suddenly, I burst out laughing. I had counted to ten...He laughed when I told him the story. By the way, his father was my first teacher in the profession I chose as my life long work. I pick my friends BY THEIR HEART not their religion.
Were you back in the day when women had to wear hats to church? We girls had to remember to bring our little folded up lace doily thing to school on mass days to wear on our heads. Pity the poor girl who forgot, and there was usually at least one. The same Sister Colette stuck a kleenex on the head of one poor kid with a hairpin. Mortified, tears in her eyes, she lined up for communion. The priest at the time was so outraged at the whole thing he snatched the tissue off her head before he would give her communion.
I bet she's still in therapy:-)
P.S. Was he worth the ten seconds ? :)
Yes, we did the hat thing. We passed by a spirea bush on the way to church....Two bobbie pins and a little branch!!
Northern winters?? A babushka!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.