Query:
Surely you are aware that the Orthodox church has a "one bishop, one city" rule that has been in place for centuries.
Do you think that this rule:
a) is only to prevent peer competition between bishops in a single city;
b) suggests that the flock in a single city has only a single (earthly) shepherd;
c) is irrelevant today; or
d) something else (please explain).
(You can pick more than one, if you like.)
If you agree with (b), doesn't that suggest that - for example - the Patriarch of Moscow does not have spiritual authority (or spiritual responsibility) for any Orthodox person outside the city of Moscow, although he may have some administrative authority. I've heard Orthodox folks who would say so.
If that is so, then is that also true of the "Ecumenical Patriarch" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Constantinople) and the "pope" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Rome).
Finally, given that other cities than Constinople and Rome have become dominant in the new order of things, shouldn't those other city's metropolitans/patriarchs be accorded greater administrative authority.
-Turretinfan
Saturday, September 22, 2007
9 comments:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
FT: a) is only to prevent peer competition between bishops in a single city;
ReplyDeleteb) suggests that the flock in a single city has only a single (earthly) shepherd;
c) is irrelevant today; or
d) something else (please explain).
O: Not sure what you're trying to get at. One bishop per city avoids factions and promotes unity.
FT: doesn't that suggest that - for example - the Patriarch of Moscow does not have spiritual authority (or spiritual responsibility) for any Orthodox person outside the city of Moscow
O: Orthodox bishops have no authority outside of their diocese and that includes Patriarchs. The same is true in Roman Catholicism EXCEPT that the Pope gets to stick his head in anywhere he pleases.
FT: If that is so, then is that also true of the "Ecumenical Patriarch" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Constantinople) and the "pope" (namely that he has no spiritual authority outside of Rome).
O: Correct.
FT: Finally, given that other cities than Constinople and Rome have become dominant in the new order of things, shouldn't those other city's metropolitans/patriarchs be accorded greater administrative authority.
O: What authority?
The Metropolitan for all the Russian churches outside Russia resides in New York. But that doesn't mean he has authority to meddle anywhere in the world.
Dear Orthodox,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I appreciate your perspective on this question. Surely you agree, though, that a metropolitan/patriarch has some form of administrative authority.
Also, surely you agree that the original five patriarchites, and at least the patriarchite of Moscow were established because of the political importance of those cities. These days, New York, London, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Washington DC, and Beijing (and - still - Moscow) would seem to have the most political importance, and some would argue that Beijing, Moscow, and/or New York/DC has the most political influence on earth. If so, and if the "Orthodox" church is to follow its own precedent, shouldn't the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch be in a more politically important city than Constantinople, and shouldn't cities like New York, Berlin, and Paris have patriarchs rather than just metropolitans?
-Turretinfan
FT: Surely you agree, though, that a metropolitan/patriarch has some form of administrative authority.
ReplyDeleteO: He has an administrative position within the synod of bishops.
FT: shouldn't the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch be in a more politically important city than Constantinople, and shouldn't cities like New York, Berlin, and Paris have patriarchs rather than just metropolitans?
O: Paris and Berlin might be important cities, but they are not important cities in Orthodoxy.
In any case, what difference does it make if you have a patriarch or an archbishop or a metropolitan? Bulgaria has a patriarch, as does Romania and Georgia. Maybe when another area has as many members as Georgia, they will have a patriarch too. But at the end of the day it's just a title, it's not going to make any difference.
Dear Orthodox,
ReplyDeleteYou pointed out, quite correctly, that "Paris and Berlin might be important cities, but they are not important cities in Orthodoxy."
One thing I am trying to bring across is that "important ... in Orthodoxy" is not the standard by which Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople were picked. They were picked because they were important cities politically. Now, it is simply a matter of ingrained tradition. What once was justified, now is itself the justification for its own perpetuation.
Moscow would seem to be most politically important city in which the "patriarch" has political influence. Thus, why not call it "Third Rome" and make the Patriarch of Moscow the Ecumenical Patriarch?
If the answer is "because Constantinople (or Rome) has always had first place" then you are not justifying yourself the way the Nicean council justified itself. Such adherence to old customs would seem hollow. The outer shell of their decision is preserved, but the inner core of their reasoning is abandoned.
Your comment that "it's just a title" is not quite true - at least when it comes to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Surely you are aware that he has a title, "His All Holiness" and a crown (and various other regalia) associated with the title. It's not quite like the title "Moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland," even if arguably the role is supposed to be similar.
-Turretinfan
"His All Holiness"--what a hoot!
ReplyDelete(If it wasn't really sad).
--Godith
The patriarchates were never merely about political power. They were among the largest cities in the known world and as such they were the most important centers of orthodox christianity.
ReplyDeleteConstantinople became the biggest city in the empire, and to the extent that its political position was important, it was because it was an orthodox Christian state. The ability of the Patriarch to work with the Emperor gave benefits in having them co-located.
Now concerning the ecumenical patriarch, ecumenical was a word that meant as pertaining to the empire. Constantinople had an ecumenical librarian and an ecumenical everything you can think of. It was equivilent to the British practice of having a "royal" everything, like the royal mail, or the royal navy etc. The Ecumenical patriarch was the patriarch of the royal city.
The title is now a bit obsolete now that there is no empire but it still serves as a reminder that Constantinople contains the highest bishop.
Why doesn't Moscow become the ecumenical patriarch? Partly because there is no empire. Partly because no council has met to consider this question. Partly because way back, Constantinople never tried to become the top city over Rome even though it was the highest politically. As I was saying, political position is just one factor. Basically the church can do what it pleases in this respect, it is free to do what is useful for the Church, and back then doing what they did was pragmatically useful. But unless Constantinople and Moscow find themselves in the same orthodox Christian empire with Moscow as capital like what happened earlier in history, I don't see it changing.
Regarding the title and crown, all bishops have exalted titles and crowns. Go to any Orthodox church service where the bishop is present and you'll see the same outfit and hear similar titles. Like the rest of the vestments, the crown is symbolic of the crowns all Christians will gain of eternal life. It doesn't set the bishop up as some kind of king. The titles are a way for the church to give respect to the leaders of the church. None of this makes sense in modern American culture were informality is always the order of the day, but even America has strange titles, like calling former presidents "Mr President". In old English culture, everyone from judges to aristocracy etc has similar titles. To show less respect to the church elders than to show to secular members of society would have been wrong. Americans aren't going to understand these things unless they can shift their minds to a different cultural context.
To paraphrase Orwell, some bishops are "more equal" than others. Surely you know that.
ReplyDeleteEveryone that gets married (women included) get crowned.
There is a lot of gold in "Orthodoxy," and yet there is a sense in which the EP is the "head cheese."
I think your political explanation as to why Moscow did not become the seat of the EP (because the USSR did not include Turkey) makes sense. With all the accusations of America's imperialism, perhaps we'll someday see a move to NY or DC.
-Turretinfan
T: There is a lot of gold in "Orthodoxy," and yet there is a sense in which the EP is the "head cheese."
ReplyDeleteO: Head cheese eh. As long as you recognize that he is a head who can't have even the slightest direct effect over somebody in say Moscow.
Orthodox wrote: "Head cheese eh. As long as you recognize that he is a head who can't have even the slightest direct effect over somebody in say Moscow."
ReplyDeleteI respond: If a bishop (say the bishop/metropolitan of Nizhny Novgorod) had a dispute with the patriarch of Moscow - by whom would the matter be decided in accordance with the ancient canons?
-Turretinfan