What a bishop is

Bishops have an almost impossible job in 2008.

They have almost zilch to work with. Whether that is the will of God, or the result of their own actions or incompetance, the way society has evolved in the past 100 years, or maybe the inability of bishops to understand the changes and to redefine there shepherd role instead of their bureaucratic role.

This does not look much different than it has worked for much of the past. It all held together in the past when people did not leave their church even if it was poorly run or corrupt.

Steve

His comments sound exactly like the reasons Southern Baptist friends tell me why they do not have bishops or priests. It makes their arguments of how the SBC church is more true to the 4th century Church sound valid.

For historical context, from The Early Church, by Henry Chadwick (Pelican 1967, often reprinted):

"The epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians [Clement died at the end of the first century AD] implies the existence of two distinct orders of ministry, bishops OR [italics in original] presbyters (the titles are applied to the same people) and deacons. This twofold order is also apparent in the New Testament: Paul addresses his Philippian epistle to the 'bishops and deacons'. Later New Testament writings (Acts xx, 17; Titus i, 5-7) likewise illustrate the application of 'presbyter' and 'bishop' to the same person" (p. 46). See also St. Jerome's Commentary on Titus (on Chapter 1, verse 5) and his letter to Oceanus (Letter 69): "Among the ancients bishops and priests [were] the same."

"It is noteworthy that in the Didache, as in the letter of Clement to Corinth and in the later New Testament writings (see 1 Tim. iii), the local ministry is two-tiered - - bishops or presbyters and deacons. Between these two orders, according to all the evidence, there is a distinction in litrugical function: in the common eucharist the presbyter-bishop celebrates while the deacon assists. Deacons also helped the bishops in looking after any church property and in administering charitable relief" (Chadwick, pp. 47-8).

St. Jerome, Letter CXLVI, to Evangelus, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 6: "the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops," with several Scriptural citations. He states that eventually "one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest" in order "to remedy schism" and ordain. The editors state that the date of the letter is uncertain. St. Jerome's dates are ca. AD 347-419/20.

In a passage whose meaning has been debated by scholars, St. John Cassian [AD 360-435]writes of a presbyter, Paphnutius, promoting one Daniel "to the dignity of the priesthood" (NPNF Series 2, V.11, p. 330).

These are sample passages for historical background. Other passages also indicating the synonymity of presbyter/priest and bishop may be found in the Shepherd of Hermas, Letter of St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus's Against Heresies, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostom (in the New Testament; see his Homilies on Philippians 1:1), Theodoret on Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:1, Oecumenius in his Commentary on the Book of Acts (on 20:17), St. Maximus the Confessor in a comment on Dionysius the Areopagite's Concerning the Divibne Names, etc.

MW:

Henry Chadwick's book is a nice and easy-to-read one-volume exposure to the history of the church's first 1,000 years. But as Hubert Cunliffe-Jones says in the Introduction to his book, A History of Christian Doctrine: "The history of the Church is in many ways very disconcerting." Though the author has no axe to grind, the person who reads Chadwick will not come away unscathed, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. ;-)

It might sound, from my first message, like all those patristic citations were found in Henry Chadwick's book. I've quoted from the NPNF series indepedently of Chadwick, and also from an essay contributed by Arthur Carl Piepkorn to vol. 4 of Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue.

Eric W, the study of Church history is certainly disconcerting for Protestants who regard the Sacrament that Christ instituted att he Last Supper as essentially a devotional and commemorative occasion, or Baptism as essentially an ordinance whereby one proclaims one's intention to live a Christian life, etc., but that's another topic.

That's about all I mean to say now, though, since this thread is supposed to be on the episcopacy, and of course I think Rod primarily intended a discussion about the Orthodox episcopacy as it is now, whatever its origins may have been.

The reality is that the trouble with the Church has always been that there are people in it. That's always disconcerting for anybody who's trying to see a period of perfection that never existed in the first place.

And yet, somehow, the Holy Spirit operates through those broken vessels. That should be hopeful, not disconcerting.

Richard

Eric W, I think you have a point, as regards Dionysios anyway. My experience is that Orthodox folks acknowledge that his works are pseudonymous but hold they are authoritative anyway. But I doubt they would have attained the authority they had for centuries if they had not been taken as real writings by a disciple of St. Paul's...

& of course they are important influences on the ideas of the hierarchy of the Church that developed in the centuries after the time of the apostles.

How big should a diocese be anyway? I recall reading that the San Antonio RC diocese has 700,000 communicants. I cannot imagine that a single bishop can care for that many souls. I can understand the setup of a given geographic territory, but pairing it with modern cities that have huge populations doesn't seem to be the best strategy for an episcopacy that can effectively shepherd the Body of Christ.

Caveat: I'm a Protestant. Sometimes I even wonder if the church I attend (at about 600) is too big.

Seems historic, bitter human resentments about church authority continue to block Jesus's message about loving those who hate you. Curious that per the gospels, beside eating with sinners, Jesus did not reject even Judas from communicating with "the team" at the last supper. However, it's somehow necessary for orthodox to ban inter-communion with catholics, and vis-a-versa. Maybe even punish those who do. In case you missed this:

Front Page / Editorial

A Solomonic decision

The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church has emphasized the ban on sacramental inter-communion, yet avoided to punish the two hierarchs who have recently taken the liberty of doing so. A Solomonic decision of exemplary balance. There have been averted any ambiguities over the dogmatic basis for inter-communion, but also the witch-hunt for which some had already been readying. The guilt of those incriminated has not been conjured away, quite the opposite, as it was extended to the lay that would partake in the Eucharist with non-Orthodox believers. The polemics sparked by the gestures made by the metropolitan bishop of Banat and the Oradea bishop respectively have prompted a clear-cut synod reaction over ecumenical attitudes. Aside from the ill-willed and unfair innuendos from some opponents who read such gestures as a trend towards Catholicization, the gestures were motivated by a wish for rapprochement to a Church held as sisterly.

Let’s not forget that one of the images floated during the inter-war period, when the reunion of the two ‘national’ churches from Ardeal was of two pews for the same altar. Back then however, the modern ecumenical movement was only in incipient stage and had yet not stirred the kind of turmoil it does today, due to the vagaries of a close, good-willed relationship, yet grounded in implicit compromises. Adding to this privileged relationship with the Greek-Catholics, which relied not just on a common national history, but also a similar Eastern/Orthodox dogmatic and liturgical tradition, was the special relationship with the Catholic Church in general, notably after the openness occasioned by late Pope John Paul II’s visit to Romania. This rapprochement was however matched by a strong opposition from some hierarchs, monachal or lay circles. Not few were those who wished almost all the bridges with other Christian confessions burnt, and, surprisingly, and most notably, with Catholics. The metropolitan bishop of Cluj, a fervent anti-Catholic, has maintained without any problem excellent relations with a Lutheran eparchy from Germany, whose financial support the local Archbishopric enjoyed not once, while venting his rage at the Greek-catholic hierarchs or the papal nuntio. The Catholics inspire fear through the prestige of a Church that is not only well organized but also bi-millennial, the only one able to compete with the spiritual richness of Orthodoxy.

Some take an alarmist approach to such competition, as they regard it as the premise for mass apostasy, while others, a lot fewer, see it as both stimulating and an exercise in convergence.

What the synod communiqué does not specify is the reason for the guilt which the two Orthodox hierarchs assumed. It may be that the discussions between the members of the Holy Synod brought to surface some relevant differences in view as well. The extreme positions are, on one hand, that of rejecting en masse the legitimacy of the Catholic Sacraments and that of a tactical adjustment to the conservatism of the masses. If the Catholic Church is treated as ‘heretical’ (which actually means separated from Truth God), the sacramental grace is therefore implicitly denied. Without the full truth, there cannot be any Eucharist, the most radical voices say. At the opposite end there are those who regard dogmatic firmness look with some detachment, and hold the time is not yet for true sacramental intercommunity. They see the two hierarchs guilty mainly for the confusion they created in the minds of the Orthodox, confused by such untimely gestures. The issue of the catholic ‘heresy’ is yet to be dealt with. Only a pan-Orthodox Synod would stand the legitimate authority to have its say on the matter at hand. Otherwise, there runs the risk for the frail Orthodox solidarity to get lost through uncorrelated stances. Moreover, not just the legitimacy of any ecumenical openness would be brutally suspended (as is the case with the open denunciation of ‘heresy’), but it would also lead to a spiral of violence which has seen so many flare-ups over the past millennium. Although the separation in 1054 AD was a schism, not a heresy (a distinction of essence, circumscribing the reasons to a secondary level), the dogmatic evolution by the two Churches registered further divergences that even if today are not so exacerbated as they used to, cannot be played down either. On the other hand, to devalue the Catholic Eucharist would stand proof to an unbearable arrogance towards a Church that went through so many painful moments in order to survive over time. Yet, the Eucharist is not some ‘merchandise’ which only needs to have its divine quality checked, but a special grace-inspired communion, the vector of an eschatological dynamic.

The synod decision avoided any mistake. There have been many reasons for it, yet, it was the fair assessment of the deed that proved decisive, yet without any obscure intentions. The two hierarchs were wrong, yet they did so not for the sake of a schism or as a treason gesture against the Orthodoxy. Other hierarchs would have wanted to avail of this opportunity in order to settle some accounts, while others would have wanted to turn back the page of ecumenical openness. The thoughts about a ‘revolution’ in the Synod were also there, with the defrocking of the two hierarchs as only the preamble for similar action against others who carried even more weight. The Patriarch himself could be found on such lists. Still, such punishments would have created some dangerous precedents and, in the long term, instability more than anything else. At the same time, it should not have been proper for the Holy Synod to yield to the ‘thirst for blood’ of the masses stirred by some, as the majority argument has proved rather deceiving over time. However, relevant debates are likely to continue, and ecumenical relations may require a new ground.
by Catalin Bogdan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
published in issue 4222 page 1 at 2008-07-11
(C) 2000-2007 Nine o'Clock,
The Web Edition - Your English Language Daily [e]Newspaper
Thank you for visiting us, and do come back tomorrow for fresh news and entertainment.
Last update: 12-07-2008