Some thoughts on a posting made elsewhere...
First, for any who still bother checking out this blog (a stubborn bunch you must be!), I apologize for being so tardy about updating it as of late. In part this was due to my having so precious little to say, and in part due to the ebb and flow of life (with it's stresses and demands.) Again, my apologies.
Serge's A Conservative Blog For Peace brought to my attention an article by Alvin Kimmel on the subject of "Rome" which can be read by clicking the following link...
"The undeniable, offensive, glorious fact of Rome"
Perhaps some would simply accuse me of Protestant-style "no Popery"* - but I've yet to see the compelling argument for "Papism" in any variety, whether it be the Italian, Greek, or Russian forms. At least a compelling arugment for "Papism" proper - meaning, exagerated juristictional claims, which reduce any given ecclessiology to obedience-to/communion-with this-particular-bishop.
Given human nature, it's hard to not have at any one time someone "coming out on top, someone having more influence, or the simple practical need for someone to excercise some form of leadership when "the many" are collectively assembled. That is a practical reality, and one which I do not think Orthodox Christianity has fundamental problems with. Acceptance of this is implied by the existance of arch-episcopal titles (Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, etc. etc.), and the canonical rights that have often been attatched to those titles by custom and the consent of other Churches.
However it would seem to me there is a world of difference between this, and and anything resembling what I would call "unconditional leadership" and "unconiditonal authority" - which is what is implied in teaching any hierarch is above the judgement of his brothers (as the Pope of elder-Rome does), the unfailing litmus test of just who "is in the Church" (as elder-Rome does), and by default is of unfailing faith (which is implied, in spite of historical facts which show the falsity of this, in teaching his automatic authority, universal juristiction, supremecy, personal infallibility no matter how qualified, etc. etc.)
Btw. while Rome is the worst offender in this regard, this kind of "Papism" is really much broader temptation, which most arch-episcopal See's of great importance have been tempted by at one point or another (ex. Constantinople, arguably to this day, has been on-again/off-again tempted by the idea that Orthodox ecclessiology can be reduced to it's consent.)
Really, putting one's faith in the sons of men is a waste of time - they are reliable, in so far as they are faithful. If they have Light, they they can and ought to be followed. If they do not, they should be regarded in kind.
Thus, one can harp endlessly about the "fact of Rome", and confuse the glories of this world with those of the Kingdom of God - but in the end, if the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc. is not teaching in the Apostolic Succession (which is far more that the mere laying on of hands - this is only the most exoteric, and superficial aspect of said succession), then their place as a cultural or political force is of little meaning in the sight of eternity - after all, the Ayatollah is viewed with such reverence as well by quite a healthy slice of the human family.
In other words, there is no authority apart from truth (Orthodoxy.) A Bishop is not to be obeyed, if he teaches heresy - and a Bishop cannot claim to be first amongst his brethren (let alone anything beyond this!), if he teaches something other than the truth.
* - Though this really is not an accusation that means much to me, as I usually find it being used as an attempt to end legitimate discussion - I guess many Roman Catholics believe to be accused of being "a Protestant" is the ultimate put-down, and something that any respectable person would want to avoid being associated with in the least. Comparing some aspects of Orthodoxy to Protestantism is no more offensive than making certain comparisons between it and Catholicism.
Serge's A Conservative Blog For Peace brought to my attention an article by Alvin Kimmel on the subject of "Rome" which can be read by clicking the following link...
"The undeniable, offensive, glorious fact of Rome"
Perhaps some would simply accuse me of Protestant-style "no Popery"* - but I've yet to see the compelling argument for "Papism" in any variety, whether it be the Italian, Greek, or Russian forms. At least a compelling arugment for "Papism" proper - meaning, exagerated juristictional claims, which reduce any given ecclessiology to obedience-to/communion-with this-particular-bishop.
Given human nature, it's hard to not have at any one time someone "coming out on top, someone having more influence, or the simple practical need for someone to excercise some form of leadership when "the many" are collectively assembled. That is a practical reality, and one which I do not think Orthodox Christianity has fundamental problems with. Acceptance of this is implied by the existance of arch-episcopal titles (Metropolitan, Archbishop, Patriarch, Ecumenical Patriarch, etc. etc.), and the canonical rights that have often been attatched to those titles by custom and the consent of other Churches.
However it would seem to me there is a world of difference between this, and and anything resembling what I would call "unconditional leadership" and "unconiditonal authority" - which is what is implied in teaching any hierarch is above the judgement of his brothers (as the Pope of elder-Rome does), the unfailing litmus test of just who "is in the Church" (as elder-Rome does), and by default is of unfailing faith (which is implied, in spite of historical facts which show the falsity of this, in teaching his automatic authority, universal juristiction, supremecy, personal infallibility no matter how qualified, etc. etc.)
Btw. while Rome is the worst offender in this regard, this kind of "Papism" is really much broader temptation, which most arch-episcopal See's of great importance have been tempted by at one point or another (ex. Constantinople, arguably to this day, has been on-again/off-again tempted by the idea that Orthodox ecclessiology can be reduced to it's consent.)
Really, putting one's faith in the sons of men is a waste of time - they are reliable, in so far as they are faithful. If they have Light, they they can and ought to be followed. If they do not, they should be regarded in kind.
Thus, one can harp endlessly about the "fact of Rome", and confuse the glories of this world with those of the Kingdom of God - but in the end, if the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Patriarch of Moscow, etc. is not teaching in the Apostolic Succession (which is far more that the mere laying on of hands - this is only the most exoteric, and superficial aspect of said succession), then their place as a cultural or political force is of little meaning in the sight of eternity - after all, the Ayatollah is viewed with such reverence as well by quite a healthy slice of the human family.
In other words, there is no authority apart from truth (Orthodoxy.) A Bishop is not to be obeyed, if he teaches heresy - and a Bishop cannot claim to be first amongst his brethren (let alone anything beyond this!), if he teaches something other than the truth.
* - Though this really is not an accusation that means much to me, as I usually find it being used as an attempt to end legitimate discussion - I guess many Roman Catholics believe to be accused of being "a Protestant" is the ultimate put-down, and something that any respectable person would want to avoid being associated with in the least. Comparing some aspects of Orthodoxy to Protestantism is no more offensive than making certain comparisons between it and Catholicism.
posted by The Rambler at 9:42 PM
4 comments
