by Fr Thomas Hopko
From Orthodox Christians for Accountability
Orthodox Christians devoted to accountability are surely aware that accountability in behavior cannot be separated from accountability in understanding since practice (praxis) is necessarily connected to vision (theoreia).
This conviction inspires me, given the present state of things, to raise the following question: Is it possible that the teaching of the Second Vatican Council about the ministry of bishops in the Roman Catholic Church is now being taught and practiced in an adapted and altered form in our Orthodox churches today?
Let me explain why I raise such a question.
According to the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church, following Vatican I and the Council of Trent, bishops are not organically connected to the specific dioceses in which they serve. They rather have their episcopal position and power by virtue of their personal sacramental consecration as bishops. They are, so to speak, considered to be bishops in their own right, and not in virtue of their ministries as heads and overseers of actually existing ecclesial communities to which they belong. As such, they can be moved about from church to church, and even function in bureaucratic positions with titles of sees that no longer exist and therefore without being the leading member of any particular church, and without having any flock at all.
In this teaching and practice, bishops are not elected by the people of their dioceses and confirmed by all the bishops of the regional church to which they belong who, as brother bishops, affirm their election by first examining their faith and behavior, and then, when all is found to be acceptable, by consecrating them through the “laying on of hands.” They are rather appointed directly by the Pope of Rome. While their validity as bishops derives from their sacramental consecration, their legitimacy as bishops derives from their communion with the Pope, and their submission to him.
Together with the Pope, and under his immediate direction, and in obedience to his unique authority considered to derive directly from God (whatever “politicking” may have produced him by vote of the qualified bishops in the college of cardinals, all Vatican-appointed men with titular pastorates of churches in the diocese of Rome), the bishops as consecrated individuals corporately form a “college” (collegium) that governs the universal catholic Church. And, as just noted, they do so by virtue of their union with the See of Rome and in submission to its bishop who is believed to be the unique “successor of Peter” and “vicar of Christ” and “supreme pontiff of the Church” who possesses direct and immediate episcopal authority and jurisdiction over every member of the universal church, including all the other bishops, and who also possesses the authority to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals when speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri) not from the consensus of the Church (ex consensu ecclesiae) but rather in, by and from himself (ex sese).
In this understanding, the bishops of a regional Roman Catholic Church like, for example, the RCC of the United States or the RCC of Canada, may for practical purposes form a local “episcopal assembly”. In the United States such an assembly exists. It is called The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This conference elects its president and officers. It hires its employees and operates its offices. It organizes and coordinates certain ecclesial activities. It makes statements about church teachings and policies. It represents the Catholic Church in public life. And it leads and represents the regional Catholic Church as a whole, i.e. as a federation of Catholic archdioceses and dioceses in the USA. But this assembly of bishops has no ecclesial or ecclesiastical status whatsoever. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, it is not essential to the Church’s being and it need not exist. As the saying goes, it may be established for the church’s “well being” (bene esse) while being not at all necessary to the church’s “very being” (esse). It is not a canonical body. It is not an episcopal synod. It has no official place or status in the Church’s essential structure. It surely does not govern a self-governing church in communion with all other self-governing churches. It exists and operates exclusively under the direction of the Pope of Rome and the Vatican’s curial officers who are appointed by the Pope and answerable to him alone.
[Those interested in this subject should read the decrees of Vatican II, especially the decree on the constitution of the Church called Lumen Gentium. They may also read John O’Malley’s book recently published by Harvard University Press called “What Happened at Vatican II” And on the relationship between the RCC “episcopal assembly” in the US and the Vatican, Archbishop Rembert Weakland’s memoir published by Eerdmans entitled “A Pilgrim in an Pilgrim Church” is especially instructive and illuminating.]
The Orthodox Church, of course, has no infallible Pope who exercises direct and immediate episcopal jurisdiction over all the Church’s members in the world, including the other bishops. It has no bishop of any see that can speak in any way binding on all the faithful in matters of faith and morals. It has no curia. It has no magisterium. It has no college of cardinals. It has no international advisory council of bishops from around the world. It has no “ecumenical council”, or a council of any kind, that can be considered authoritative, still less infallible, before its decisions are taken and are universally accepted – or perhaps rejected — by all the churches that recognize each other as Orthodox.
According to traditional Orthodoxy, using the celebrated third century formula of St. Cyprian of Carthage in his controversy with the bishop of Rome, Christ’s Church knows no “bishop of bishops” (episcopus episcoporum). The “episcopate is one” (episcopatus unus est) and all of the Church’s bishops hold the same episcopal authority and exercise the same episcopal service “in solidarity” (in solidum) with each other. The holy hieromartyr also teaches that the bishop of every church who makes St. Peter’s confession of faith and receives the Holy Spirit with the authority of “binding and loosing”, sits on the “seat of Peter” (cathedra Petri.) And St. Cyprian also holds, as proven by his famous letter 69, that the bishop in his own church does nothing by himself, but acts in everything in harmony with the church’s “common council” to which, as a member and head of the church, he is accountable for everything he says and does.
These convictions, formulated so clearly and so well by St. Cyprian, are proclaimed and defended by all Orthodox doctrines and canons through the centuries. They are also demonstrated in Orthodox liturgy, including the rites of election and consecration of bishops. The Orthodox Church unequivocally rejects the teachings of Vatican Council I about the special position, prerogatives and powers of the Bishop of Rome. And today the Orthodox Church, it seems to me, should also reject the explanation of Vatican II about how bishops function in the Church, and how they and their churches are to relate to each other, including even to autocephalous churches and their primates.
So what might a version of the Vatican II doctrine about bishops look like in the Orthodox Church?
It might be that Orthodox “episcopal assemblies” will be established and organized not by an “apostolic see” with special powers, but by common agreement of the synods and primates of the world’s autocephalous churches. These “episcopal assemblies” will come into being in regions where no common autocephalous Orthodox church, with its synod of bishops headed by its episcopal primate, exists. The bishops of the autocephalous churches that are virtually all “national” or “ethnic” in character will control their bishops and dioceses in these regions even when the majority of their members are no longer of the ethnicity or nationality of the autocephalous church to which they belong. The names of the primates of the autocephalous churches will be raised in the liturgies of the churches that belong to them in the given region, either in all the churches, or just by the bishops, or just by the local primates. The synods of the autocephalous church will appoint the bishops and organize their dioceses in the region, or will at least confirm or reject local elections and decisions. And then, all the bishops in the regions belonging to different autocephalous churches will together form an “episcopal assembly” under the joint direction and corporate guidance of the autocephalous churches to which they belong led by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus the autocephalous churches will act together as a kind of “corporate Orthodox papacy” governing the regional episcopal assemblies whose actions will be subject to their review, revision and even ultimate rejection if they consider that to be necessary.
In this understanding, the regional “episcopal assemblies” will, for example, be allowed, and even encouraged, to undertake common missionary, educational and philanthropic activities, and to represent Orthodoxy in social and governmental activities. They may also be allowed to organize their dioceses as they see fit, and to care for all legal, fiduciary and financial matters as they decide. But only the synods of bishops of the autocephalous churches under the direction of their primates will ultimately approve or disapprove their activities. Only they will have authentic synodical status and genuine canonical authority. The local, regional assemblies of bishops will have none at all. They will not elect their own officers, but will be structured according to the order of the autocephalous churches. In the United States this would mean Constantinople would be first, then Antioch, the Moscow, etc. They will remain subject to the universal “collegium” in which they are included by virtue of their membership in the given autocephalous churches to which they belong. Thus the regional “episcopal assembly” will exist and operate solely within the areas and conditions that the universal “collegium” allows them. They will not elect their own bishops, at least not without approval subject to certain conditions of the autocephalous churches to which they belong. And they will certainly not be self-governing “sister churches” equal to and identical with all the others, however much it may be claimed that this is the ultimate goal of their existence.
Given the origin and history of the Orthodox ecclesiastical “jurisdictions” in North America, and given the behavior of the autocephalous churches, and given the activities to date of the United States Episcopal Assembly and the relationship of its “member jurisdictions” to the old world patriarchates from which they originate, one can only hope that what we are now experiencing is not the working out of an “Orthodoxized” version of the Vatican II doctrine. Time will tell as the process goes on. And what will surely be told as time goes by is how our Orthodox bishops in North America and throughout the world understand themselves, and their episcopal service in their own churches, and their relationship to each other in their local regions, and their relationship to all the Orthodox Churches that make up Christ’s holy Church in the world as a whole.
Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko
Dean Emeritus
St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary
Oh boy. Before the feathers start flying and the daggers come out let me very quickly point out that this was NOT an attack on Rome (though it may seem as such and he does not misrepresent points of serious divergence). It was and is a shot across the bow of the local Orthodox churches of the old world who have been promoting a scandalously uncanonical ecclesiology here in N. America. In short, this sharply worded piece is intended to speak to an internal Orthodox scandal.
On that note; it’s time to pop the pop corn and watch the fireworks. Could someone please pass the butter?
I am not getting into a bun fight over this. Fr. Hopko’s views of Catholic ecclesiology are, as usual, over the top and seriously worth ignoring, as are his views about anything involving Catholicism. I would rather argue with Jack Chick.
> “It has no magisterium.”
Sure it does. The magisterium is simply one the one voice of all the bishops. Without a magisterium, studying the Church Fathers would be pointless since the unified voice of the early bishops outside of an ecumenical council would be no more valid than a local Protestant Bible Study.
> “It has no ‘ecumenical council’, or a council of any kind, that can be considered authoritative, still less infallible, before its decisions are taken and are universally accepted– or perhaps rejected — by all the churches that recognize each other as Orthodox.”
If this is the case, then all councils after the Oriental Orthodox schism are invalid since it wasn’t universally accepted. Talking about percentages gets of acceptance is problematic and leaves you in the position that Anglicans are today (where do you draw the line by by what authority is 95% okay and 94% not?).
And if a council does have to be universally accepted, then the Oriental Orthodox might be “the true church” since non-Oriental Orthodox violated this rule while the Oriental Orthodox haven’t.
There are criteria for an ecumenical council to be valid (e.g. a council which purposely excludes a portion of the bishops in order to push forward an agenda like Arianism is invalid), but the validity dependent on the nature of the council itself and the nature of the resolutions and not on how it is accepted (again since if universal acceptance were required, the Council of Nicea was soundly rejected in favour of Arianism and other Trinity-centered heresies which are still very much alive today).
Please do not oversimplify. Oversimplification by both the Orthodox and Catholics is one of the chief reasons for such deep misunderstandings on both sides.
I don’t know all the criteria for a valid ecumenical council, but if one doesn’t exist, it might be a worthy exercise for both Orthodox and Catholics to come up with one since when reconciliation between East and West eventually happens, we don’t want a repeat of the Council of Florence.
The Vincentian Canon is a good start, but is too ideal for the reasons outlined above. The “hermeneutic of continuity” (which is contained within the Vincentian Canon) I think both side can agree is the minimum criteria, which is why the Church Fathers are valued so much by both Catholics and Orthodox alike.
I didn’t post this because I want to host a “bunfight” or I want to see “fireworks.” I posted it (perhaps hoping against hope) that there can be a genuine discussion I, and others, can learn from.
I am genuinely puzzled by Hopko’s piece (I’ve always been fascinated by his oft-repeated claim that Orthodoxy has no “magisterium”). I’m not at all surprised by his caricature of RC ecclesiology; but I am curious as to what people, especially Orthodox people, think about his construal of Orthodox ecclesiology.
If this blog, dedicated to “Orthodox-Catholic Reconciliation,” has simply turned into Orthodox-Catholic Bunfight Central, if it has begun to generate more heat than light, then I might begin to give serious thought to moving on.
Then perhaps you should have given some thought to editing out the five paragraphs starting from “According to the Second Vatican Council…” They are entirely gratuitous. Surely we could have been spared Hopko’s ever-insulting trope of defining Catholicism as the standard for infidelity to the great Tradition.
You are doing good, even essential, work; but what is posted inevitably sets the tone for the discussion.
I hope you won’t move on, because you are indeed doing essential work, as Michael has pointed out below.
I rather see the problem in the fact that – natural human tendency – each party compares itself with the largest one, so basically many Churches try to say what and how they are by ponting out differences with the Catholic Church.
This attitude of “negative definition” (we declare what we are by saying what we are not) must eventually lead to misrepresentations, here of the Catholic Church.
I’m not at all mad at Fr. Hopko, he describes how he understood the Catholic Church. He’s not the Catholic Encyclopedia. And he’s not an Orthodox Encyclopedia eiter, so I don’t see why being angry at him about a somewhat fine-polished Orthodox ecclesiology.
Since this article’s subject is a question concering inner-Orthodox matters, I don’t see how catholics could take part in a discussion, though.
I agree with a lot of what he’s saying
It has no “ecumenical council”, or a council of any kind, that can be considered authoritative, still less infallible, before its decisions are taken and are universally accepted – or perhaps rejected — by all the churches that recognize each other as Orthodox.
In particular is interesting.
Here is my own view.
– There is no formula or formal definition in Orthodoxy for what makes a council ecumenical, i.e. infallible. Either how a council is convoked that is “ecumenical”, or it is confirmed as ecumenical.
– There is no exact definition of what it is that constitutes the church itself, so no definition of universality of the church.
– The “infallible” part of the councils are not new discoveries, but truths which exist which we have sought to give some definition to. These should be kept to an absolute minimum.
– The truths recognized by the councils become the basis of the dogmatic tradition of the church by their entering in to the consciousness of the church. Again, there is no definition for how this happens, nor could there ever be. This is not tantamount to universal acceptance.
– The “magisterium” of the church is much like the ordinary universal variety, meaning the tradition of the church is the reference point for interpreting the present. There is no individual that directs this.
I also agree with Fr. Hopko about having bishops who are not tied to local communities, i.e. real flocks.
The problem is, by your definitions both the Gnostics and Arians are part of the Church since they have never died out. By what criteria can you exclude them? Why should we take one side over another? If I were born a Gnostic or an Arian, why should I defect since “My Church” satisfies all those criteria?
Why did we have such a bitter fight over Nicea if all Church truth is purely organic? Why did people martyr themselves over small variations of the nature of the Trinity? Were they fools?
No. Truth is important to both Catholics and Orthodox alike, since Christ is they way the truth and the light. Being wishy washy about true is being wishy washy about Christ. When Catholics and Orthodox eventually reconcile, it will because both have come to a common understanding of that truth and not because the definition of the Church is so hazy that we can all site down together and sing Cumbia around the fireplace with the Gnostics, Arians, and Buddhists.
Irenaeus, what family doesn’t have scrapes and squabbles where it’s tough to see when light ends and heat begins? Better to err on the side of lettin’ it all hang out than keep it repressed only to pop up later.
C-O dialogue often reminds me of Clemenza telling Michael in “The Godfather” why it’s good to have inter-family war every now and then as he’s feeding spaghetti and meatballs to his soldiers who have gone to the mattresses. “Gets all the bad blood out.”
Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.
Well, the capo di tutti i capi of the commission could call a council of the heads of the five families and the other heads to make the peace……..nah would probably end in a massacre
LOL! ;-)
each party compares itself with the largest one, so basically many Churches try to say what and how they are by ponting out differences with the Catholic Church.
An evangelical friend, who married into a Greek Orthodox family but who is sympathetic (and leaning) toward Catholicism, has pointed this out repeatedly. Every other communion (Protestant or Orthodox) defines itself against the Catholic Church.
What communion does the Catholic Church define itself against?
Hmmmm…..
Diane
P.S. I saw the Hopko article over at ocanews.org; figured it was the Same Old Sh… so didn’t bother reading it. I rarely visit ocanews.org, but when I do, I am always struck by the snarky anti-Catholiism that works itself into many posts and comments there. Can you imagine a similar Catholic site (i.e., focused on Catholic problems and scandals) working anti-Orthodox stabs into its posts and comments? Wouldn’t happen. One gets the impression sometimes that our Orthodox brethren are obsessed with us.
Since this article’s subject is a question concering inner-Orthodox matters, I don’t see how catholics could take part in a discussion, though.
How about: because it’s yet another gratuitous slam against Catholicism?
When the title refers to Vatican II, I really think the article’s fair game for Catholics.
This attitude of “negative definition” (we declare what we are by saying what we are not) must eventually lead to misrepresentations, here of the Catholic Church.
Well, yeah. But that doesn’t make it right or acceptable. “Negative definition” permeates all of anti-Catholicism. And Orthodox polemicists have it down to an art form. But that doesn’t mean it should be tolerated, much less encouraged.
There are psychological reasons why my boss is a bullying control freak — reasons that excite my pity. But that does not mean that she should be perfectly free to make all of her subordinates’ lives absolutely miserable. Whether or not someone’s obnoxious behavior is understandable, it is still obnoxious and potentially harmful, and the people who suffer from it have a legitimate right to object to it.
Well, diane, if some Orthodox feel like slamming us, let them have fun doing so. I couldn’t care less – it’s just a sign of human weakness.
The worst thing for Catholics (or human beings in general) would be to participate.
By the way, just because some Orthodox like dissing us don’t really make us suffer.
I don’t encourage it, but still, I can tolerate it. Why bother? Those folks are resistant to facts.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland’s memoir published by Eerdmans entitled “A Pilgrim in an Pilgrim Church” is especially instructive and illuminating.
I love it when Catholic-Bashers cite ultra-ultra-liberal, dissenting, disgraced Catholic sources to back up their Catholic-bashing claims. [insert rolleyes emoticon here]
Yes, I was waiting for someone to mention this. Strange bedfellows indeed. Weakland was involved for years in the North American Orthodox-Catholic Consultation.
I’ve run across more than a few “progressive” RC’s like Weakland, who claim to be great admirers of Orthodoxy … or rather, Orthodoxy’s decentralization, married priests, and positions on divorce and contraception.
And yet they underestimate, or completely ignore, Orthodoxy’s fierce devotion to its traditional Liturgy. No doubt Weakland, who did so much in his time to destroy the Catholic Liturgy, finds this very ethnic and quaint.
Do people like Weakland really think that the Orthodox want anything to do with the kind of Liturgy they’re promoting?
I suspect it’s an academic trendydox (from the ‘cool’ Parisian version of Russian Orthodoxy that St Vlad’s is a daughter house of… he’s far from a liberal compared to Western churchmen – more like a 1950s high Anglican or liturgical-movement RC – but he talks the liberals’ language) telling Western liberal churchmen what they want to hear, because they hate the Pope not for his relatively modest claimed powers (definer and enforcer of doctrine, and with universal jurisdiction) but because he’s Catholic (he won’t change the church into a mainline Protestant denomination – like an Orthodox bishop, he says he can’t!). Hearing this stuff from an Eastern churchman flatters them because they think the East is more spiritual than the West, it gives them antique/academic cred and it looks ecumenical.
Perhaps the discussion here will begin going somewhere if the participants would lay down the following:
1) In what ways does Fr. Thomas Hopko caricaturize Catholic ecclesiology and the teaching of Vatican II?
2) In what ways does Fr. Thomas Hopko misrepresent Orthodox ecclesiology vis-a-vis Catholic ecclesiology?
Any takers?
I will NOT be a “taker.” If some innocent Orthodox were to come here to this site and express such misunderstandings, I would gladly take the time to set him or her straight.
Fr. Hopko, on the other hand, is the head of a seminary, and is thus not an innocent, and should know better. He has also made a career of his anti-Catholic misrepresentations and is, I must conclude as a result, impervious to factual correction in such matters. I have thus no intention of providing him with a platform either directly or, in this case, by proxy.
Any Orthodox who relies on Fr. Hopko and his ilk for a fair and nuanced understanding of the theory and practice of Catholic ecclesiology should seriously ask themselves why they would prefer his witness to that of authentic Catholic sources on these topics. Apparently, Catholics are not only not to be trusted in authentically defining their ecclesiology, but can’t even be trusted to interpret it themselves, and must have Fr. Hopko do it for them lest it somehow appear reasonable, sensible and in accord with authentic ancient Western practice.
The reason I pose the above question is because, in my (limited) experience, Catholic-Orthodox discussions often bog down over mutual accusations of “misunderstandings”, while relatively little is done to do the following:
1) Delimiting the actual areas of misunderstanding
2) Trying to find out if the “other’s” presentation of one’s position is, indeed, inaccurate — or if the perception of “inaccuracy” is rather due to inappropriate terms or the prevailing mindset of tension in the discussions.
Frankly, I often have the impression that on both Catholic and Orthodox sides can be found people who seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them is by definition “misunderstanding” them.
Excellent suggestions, Mr Palad.
Frankly, I often have the impression that on both Catholic and Orthodox sides can be found people who seem to think that anyone who disagrees with them is by definition “misunderstanding” them.
I’m, sorry, but Michael is right. I seldom see Catholics telling Orthodox what Orthodoxy is. But Orthodox telling Catholics what Catholicism is — not only have I seen this quite frequently, but I’ve been on the receiving end of it many, many times. I absolutely marvel at the depth and breadth of the misrepresentations. And you cannot set the record straight with some people. They are convinced they know more about your Church than you do, and they refuse to yield to facts, no matter how amply documented.
That, perhaps, is why they choose “Catholic sources” like Rembert Weakland to buttress their bogus cases.
As usual, diane, you’ve totally missed the mark here.
I simply said that there are people, on both Catholic and Orthodox sides, who accuse the “other” of misunderstanding them. There is no suggestion of parity between the two sides such that “there are an equal number of Catholic and Orthodox sides” who do this. You yourself acknowledge that this “seldom” happens with Catholics — but “seldom” is not never, unless “few” somehow equals “zero”.
Spare me the rants, diane — I’m not going to respond to you again on this thread.
It’s not what he said; it’s what he implied or at least didn’t say.
It’s true that the RC doctrine of papal infallibility says that gift doesn’t come from the consensus of the church – as if Rome were a Protestant denomination in which doctrines are changeable by vote – but he is the defender of past defined doctrines, whether defined by past Popes or by received ecumenical councils, which arguably is a kind of consensus of the church. He can’t change those doctrines.
Orthodox don’t believe one bishop’s office has the gift of infallibility but they do believe in church infallibility like Rome does.
I second Mr. Palad’s remarks. It signals a way forward. And that isn’t because I am of the Hopko fan club either.
Young Fogey, that maybe true, but the Pope judges what does and doesn’t count as past defined doctrines, including those of ecumenical councils.
Infallibility in Orthodoxy isn’t limited to bishops or councils of bishops either, as said councils themselves indicate. Even laymen have been designated as such in specific works or teachings.
Diane, in Trent, Rome defines her position over against a whole number of Protestant teachings. And even if Rome never defined itself over against another position, it doesn’t imply that its positions are true or false or that those who do are true or false. So that line of reasoning is idle. It goes nowhere. There is just no good truth preserving inference to be had there. It is a paralogism, which is worse than a sophism by any measure.
One point critical of Hoko’s argument is that of there is to be a uniform jurisdiction in the US, what he outlines above is at least a means to that end. The question is whether it is temporary or not and if the old patriarchates will bow out over time. I suspect their situation and the good old boys club network will make that more difficult to achieve than most think.
Amos, your remarks seem right on the money to me and the other position seems to me to be a product more of 19th century Russian Idealism, which was more or less the product of German Idealism in Russian, rather than the product of an examination of how the councils saw themselves and decreed with respect to the conditions for legitimate councils.
Diane, in Trent, Rome defines her position over against a whole number of Protestant teachings.
So what? That was a very special situation, wherein the Catholic Church had to respond to errors in order to save the faithful from confusion, schism, and heresy.
That’s apologetics, that is. ;) All Christians engage in it, and it’s perfectly legitimate. But you know as well as I do that I am talking about something else entirely.
The constant–and I do mean CONSTANT–gratuitous Orthodox rants against Rome are not apologetics. They are not occasioned by an immediate threat which must be responded to in order to protect the faithful. Quite often, they are not even reasoned (as genuine apologetics should be); rather, they are sheer venomous rants.
And they really do strike an outsider as just a tad obsessive. The fellow I cited, for instance, is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, yet he has noticed the phenomenon.
Imagine a Catholic counterpart to Fr. Hopko’s piece, gratuitously slamming Orthodox ecclesiology. Wouldn’t happen. Moreover, if such a piece ever were written and promulgated, Catholics would be the first to condemn it.
I rest me case.
I wish all of us would follow the lead of pious and committed Christian men, such as Pope Benedict and Metropolitan Hilarion. Engaging in the acrimonious clap trap that is so often posted here serves no purpose other than to advance one’s opinions rather than engaging in a true search for what unites in Christ all who profess Him as Lord, God, and Savior.
Didn’t Christianity in many ways define itself against facets or currents in Judaism, or even against Paganism entirely?
May the Lord grant His servant Igumen Gregory, many years!
For his wisdom and love, hopefully still the sign of a christian.
fr. Jim
“Infallibility in Orthodoxy isn’t limited to bishops or councils of bishops either, as said councils themselves indicate. Even laymen have been designated as such in specific works or teachings.”
I don’t think Young Fogey would disagree with this. But he is talking about papal infallibility. No single Orthodox bishop has the gift of infallibility as it is understood to apply solely to the pope.
T. Chan,
Yes and no. No single bishop has it as a particular chrism, that much is true, but bishops can be infallible teachers and so cal laymen in Orthodoxy. I am not disagreeing with you so much as clarifying.
Totally disagree. Binding discipline needs a binding authority, With a binding authority ther wouldn’t be ten authonomous ordinary bishops of ten different orthodox churches in the same territory , like New York.
I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. «For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.» Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?
And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son («for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made»): but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.
St John Chrysostom. Homily 54 on the gospel of st. Mathew
Whom is portraying the keys now?
«And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.»
Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, «How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?» I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.
St John Chrysostom, on the gospel of John, on John 21,19.
Then here we can understand that st John Chrysostom alraedy understoods that there were primacy of St Peter over the whole world not only of a chair.
but he is the defender of past defined doctrines, whether defined by past Popes or by received ecumenical councils, which arguably is a kind of consensus of the church.
YF, this as you know was the sticking point for my entire diocese which left over the celibacy issue and came under the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 30’s. It wasn’t necessarily about doctrine, but about tradition. There was no debate about infallibility, the immaculate conception, which was the real Fourth Council of Constantinople, etc.
Well, here’s an interesting situation! So many Catholics chiming in to say that Hopko has misrepresented them, and they are offended, but not one of them is willing to specify what Hopko has said that is offensive or inaccurate.
Thirty-eight comments about – well, about what???? Is nobody willing to say what?
Anastasia,
I assume you are asking in good faith so I will run through Fr. Hopko’s misrepresentation of Catholic ecclesiology and ecclesiological praxis point by point for your benefit. My experience, however, in this sort of discussion with Orthodox who see nothing wrong with Fr. Hopko’s portrayal leads me to suspect that you might not accept my corrections at face value, and will still prefer the take on Catholic doctrine of a notorious Orthodox polemicist. If this proves to be the case, I am not going to get into a yes-no argument with you and will simply terminate the exchange.
“According to the Second Vatican Council of the Roman Catholic Church, following Vatican I and the Council of Trent, bishops are not organically connected to the specific dioceses in which they serve.”
This is essentially untrue on several levels.
All Catholic bishops have sees (or at least are associated with their former sees, as for retired episcopi emeriti). I assume from the context that Hopko has his eyes fixed on strictly titular bishops who serve as nuncios or in the curia. If this is what he has in mind, you should know that the Phanar also has essentially titular bishops fulfilling bureaucratic functions without real sees. I refer you to Demetrius Kiminas, The Ecumenical Patriarchate: A History of Its Metropolitans with Annotated Hierarch Catalogs, 2009.
Next I don’t see where in the canons of Trent, Vatican I or Vatican II, Catholic bishops are organically disconnected from “the specific dioceses in which they serve.” Perhaps you might ask Fr. Hopko where exactly these canons are hidden.
“They rather have their episcopal position and power by virtue of their personal sacramental consecration as bishops. They are, so to speak, considered to be bishops in their own right, and not in virtue of their ministries as heads and overseers of actually existing ecclesial communities to which they belong.”
This much is true but the “rather” creates a false dichotomy between this statement and the prior untrue one.
“As such, they can be moved about from church to church, and even function in bureaucratic positions with titles of sees that no longer exist and therefore without being the leading member of any particular church, and without having any flock at all.”
True, but so what? The mentioned, the same applies at the Phanar (albeit on a smaller scale). The translation of a bishop from one see to another is another matter, but a disciplinary issue (for which there are many ancient precedents in the Eastern Churches; indeed at one time it was so common as to be considered an abuse).
“In this teaching and practice, bishops are not elected by the people of their dioceses and confirmed by all the bishops of the regional church to which they belong who, as brother bishops, affirm their election by first examining their faith and behavior, and then, when all is found to be acceptable, by consecrating them through the “laying on of hands.” They are rather appointed directly by the Pope of Rome.”
This is the practice for the Latin rite and, with few exceptions, doesn’t apply to the Eastern Catholic rites. Fr. Hopko, as per his wont however, is attempting to portray a customary praxis specific to the Latin rite as a doctrinal imperative somehow binding all Catholics. “Laying on the hands”, btw, is of course still required for ordination of Catholic bishops of whatever rite, whether appointed by the Pope or not. You might note that archbishops are required to offer a public profession of faith before receiving the pallium, and that papal appointments (with a recent case in Switzerland) are at times revoked prior to ordination when neighbouring bishops raise objections regarding the candidate’s suitability. Finally, a careful reading of ecclesiastical history can demonstrate that Orthodox episcopal elections were often largely fictitious (not to say farcical) though I will admit that this has become less true since the fall of the Soviet Union.
“While their validity as bishops derives from their sacramental consecration, their legitimacy as bishops derives from their communion with the Pope, and their submission to him.”
I don’t see where Fr. Hopko gets this. A properly ordained bishop in apostolic succession is a “legitimate” bishop, full stop, whether he is in communion with Rome or not. I will admit that an episcopus vagantes might be looked down upon as of “dubious” legitimacy in a very loose sense of the word, but the Ecumenical Patriarch certainly isn’t: as far as Catholics are concerned he is a legitimate bishop.
“Together with the Pope, and under his immediate direction, and in obedience to his unique authority considered to derive directly from God (whatever “politicking” may have produced him by vote of the qualified bishops in the college of cardinals, all Vatican-appointed men with titular pastorates of churches in the diocese of Rome), the bishops as consecrated individuals corporately form a “college” (collegium) that governs the universal catholic Church.”
The authority of ALL bishops is “derived directly from God.” The unique extent of the Pope’s authority in doctrinal matters is not engaged in this paragraph which is otherwise correct.
“And, as just noted, they do so by virtue of their union with the See of Rome and in submission to its bishop…”
“Submission” is a loaded term, but I will let that pass.
“…who is believed to be the unique “successor of Peter” and “vicar of Christ” and “supreme pontiff of the Church…”
ALL Catholic bishops are successors of Peter (the Pope is merely so in a less qualified sense); all priests presiding at the eucharist are “vicars of Christ;” the Pope is indeed, however, the only “supreme pontiff of the Church.” Fr. Hopko can’t get it all wrong.
“…who possesses direct and immediate episcopal authority and jurisdiction over every member of the universal church, including all the other bishops…”
The Eastern bishops implicitly conceded as much at the Council of Sardica. Appellate authority is meaningless if you can’t enforce it.
“…and who also possesses the authority to speak infallibly on matters of faith and morals when speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra Petri) not from the consensus of the Church (ex consensu ecclesiae) but rather in, by and from himself (ex sese).”
Classic misrepresentation jumbling the words of Pastor Aeternus and taking them out of context: Catholics believe that the Pope can teach infallibly in fidelity to the apostolic tradition, and can speak authoritatively the mind of the Church on behalf of his fellow bishops as president of the episcopate. It follows then that if what he is teaching is plainly in contradiction to, or is found nowhere in, the apostolic tradition, he isn’t teaching infallibly. If his teaching can only be trusted retrospectively once it has been vetted by the other bishops, as Fr. Hopko implies should be the case, then the episcopate has no authoritative spokesman.
“In this understanding, the bishops of a regional Roman Catholic Church like, for example, the RCC of the United States or the RCC of Canada, may for practical purposes form a local “episcopal assembly”. In the United States such an assembly exists. It is called The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). This conference elects its president and officers. It hires its employees and operates its offices. It organizes and coordinates certain ecclesial activities. It makes statements about church teachings and policies. It represents the Catholic Church in public life. And it leads and represents the regional Catholic Church as a whole, i.e. as a federation of Catholic archdioceses and dioceses in the USA. But this assembly of bishops has no ecclesial or ecclesiastical status whatsoever. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, it is not essential to the Church’s being and it need not exist. As the saying goes, it may be established for the church’s “well being” (bene esse) while being not at all necessary to the church’s “very being” (esse). ”
Here Fr. Hopko is bang on for once. The problem is that he implies that according to Orthodox “doctrine” national Churches ARE “essential” to the Church’s being. If he were to state this nonsense explicitly, not only would he be writing off the whole Church of the first millennium which knew of no national Churches, but he would be open to charges of phyletism. Even “regional” Churches don’t make an appearance until the mid-3rd century at the earliest.
“It is not a canonical body.”
Not true, there are canons governing episcopal conferences.
“It is not an episcopal synod.”
A synod is a gathering of bishops to decide matters of faith, morals or discipline. Episcopal conferences may only have delegated authority, but I don’t see why they can’t be described as “synods”. Perhaps the term has a more specialized meaning for Fr. Hopko.
“It has no official place or status in the Church’s essential structure.”
True, but so what? In principle Orthodox ones don’t (or at least shouldn’t) either.
“It surely does not govern a self-governing church in communion with all other self-governing churches. It exists and operates exclusively under the direction of the Pope of Rome and the Vatican’s curial officers who are appointed by the Pope and answerable to him alone.”
So? The Catholic Church does NOT consist of national Churches. Which model is more faithful to the Church of the first millennium?
Perhaps now you might understand why Fr. Hopko’s facile and polemic portrayals and comparisons really tick off Catholic readers.
Thank you very much, Michael, for taking the time to go through the text and point out the sticking points. At least now we all know what’s under discussion. Although it rather sounds to me like nobody really wants one, so we can leave it at that.