OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 02:21:23 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Is the EO Churches closer to the RC Church or OO Churches?
Roman Catholic Church - 2 (4.3%)
Oriental Orthodox Churches - 44 (95.7%)
Total Voters: 46

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Catholicism (RC), Eastern Orthodoxy (EO), and Oriental Orthodoxy (OO)  (Read 10110 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #180 on: October 16, 2012, 12:52:43 PM »


I think I'd have to disagree. I can't see how a universal bishop can ever be a legitimate development. If the Pope is universal bishop then surely no other bishop is really bishop at all. I can absolutely see a single bishop as head bishop within (not over) the Church as a possibly acceptable development (which is I guess what we would say the primacy of Rome should be) but he still needs to be subject to the Church and not the other way around.

James

Sorry, I don't men universal in that way.  But universal that he is somewhat a "Patriarch of Patriarchs".  Definitely not in the current authority of the Pope of Rome, but similar to what a Patriarch is today, but over the whole Church.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #181 on: October 16, 2012, 12:53:06 PM »

I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure the idea of giving any bishop the power to unilaterally fire and appoint ruling bishops is beyond the pale of Orthodox ecclesiology. Even Metropolitans and Patriarchs can't do that.

According to Fr. John Meyendorff's book, it isn't.  Given that Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church, a universal Bishop like the Pope is an acceptable development the same way we eventually developed the Metropolitan and Patriarch.  Of course it has to be in agreement with everyone and also something we admit that is a development in ecclesiology, not something divinely instituted as Rome claims.

But Metropolitans and Patriarchs are just bishops tasked with presiding at meetings of particular local synods. There have always been bishops, and there have always been synods. But the idea of a Pope, to whom all other bishops are essentially auxiliaries, is a fundamental attack on Orthodox ecclesiology. Look up the outcry when the Patriarchate of Antioch made all its bishops (not all the bishops in the world, as you seem to be advocating, just all its own bishops) essentially auxiliaries.

Then there is the ROC Patriarch.
Logged
Tags: Holy councilism Orthodoxy=7 Caesaropapism 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.048 seconds with 32 queries.