Eastern Orthodox Synods Are Bishops-Only, Metropolitan Tells Delegates

[Michie]

Metropolitan Job, the Eastern Orthodox bishop of Pisidia and the permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches, is attending the Synod on Synodality as a fraternal delegate.

Speaking to the Synod on Synodality on Monday, an Eastern Orthodox bishop said the definition of synodality of the October assembly “differs greatly” from the Orthodox understanding.

Metropolitan Job of Pisidia referenced the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea in 325, and quoted from the Apostolic Canons, a fourth-century Christian text on the government and discipline of the early Christian Church.

Drawing from this text, he said, “a synod is a deliberative meeting of bishops, not a consultative clergy-laity assembly.”

“In light of this, we could say that the understanding of synodality in the Orthodox Church differs greatly from the definition of synodality given by your present assembly of the Synod of Bishops,” he added. The current synod now underway at the Vatican is the first of its kind to include laypeople as full voting members.

Continued below.

Eastern Orthodox Synods Are Bishops-Only, Metropolitan Tells Delegates

Metropolitan Job, the Eastern Orthodox bishop of Pisidia and the permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches, is attending the Synod on Synodality as a fraternal delegate.

www.ncregister.com

 

[HTacianas]

Metropolitan Job, the Eastern Orthodox bishop of Pisidia and the permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches, is attending the Synod on Synodality as a fraternal delegate.

Speaking to the Synod on Synodality on Monday, an Eastern Orthodox bishop said the definition of synodality of the October assembly “differs greatly” from the Orthodox understanding.

Metropolitan Job of Pisidia referenced the first ecumenical council, the Council of Nicea in 325, and quoted from the Apostolic Canons, a fourth-century Christian text on the government and discipline of the early Christian Church.

Drawing from this text, he said, “a synod is a deliberative meeting of bishops, not a consultative clergy-laity assembly.”

“In light of this, we could say that the understanding of synodality in the Orthodox Church differs greatly from the definition of synodality given by your present assembly of the Synod of Bishops,” he added. The current synod now underway at the Vatican is the first of its kind to include laypeople as full voting members.

Continued below.

Eastern Orthodox Synods Are Bishops-Only, Metropolitan Tells Delegates

Metropolitan Job, the Eastern Orthodox bishop of Pisidia and the permanent representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the World Council of Churches, is attending the Synod on Synodality as a fraternal delegate.

www.ncregister.com

That is a polite, loving, and brotherly way of smacking someone on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

 

[dzheremi]

Why would it ever be otherwise? I'm confused. Laypeople don't get a say in how the Church itself is governed, not even during those periods when laypeople have played crucial roles in preserving Orthodoxy (e.g., the Oriental Orthodox rejection of the Council of Florence, which, unlike in the EO case, doesn't come down to one bishop whose name we can remember and venerate a la Mark of Ephesus, but rather to the people as a whole together with the bishops back in Egypt and Ethiopia receiving the signed agreements as "dead letters" once it became obvious what a wide gulf in understanding there was between the Romans and the OO concerning just what these documents meant).

 

[The Liturgist]

That is a polite, loving, and brotherly way of smacking someone on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

I seriously love you. Your Eastern Orthodox phronema is one of the strongest on the forum - among active members who post outside of The Ancient Way*. I look at posts by you and our friends @prodromos @Lukaris @PsaltiChrysostom among others, and our Coptic friend @dzheremi and I feel like a cool breeze of divine grace is blowing across these forums. If you ever see me post something you believe is a serious misrepresentation or misunderstanding of EO doctrine, bearing in mind of course that I am a supporter of ecumenical reconciliation but not at the price of doctrinal compromise, but I do support the ecumenical agreements between the Antiochians and Syriacs, and the Copts and the Alexandrian Greeks, since the disunity between these churches is in my opinion the result of confusion and misidentification in antiquity and more recently, political motivations, for example, the Albanian Khedives who ruled Egypt blocked a reunification between the Greek and Coptic churches of Alexandria in the 19th century.

However, this admittedly controversial position aside, which I feel obliged to disclose and also clarify that I entirely respect those who are opposed to reunification, and I myself am opposed to any reunification that would damage the liturgy, if you see me making an error talking about something specific to EO dogma, for example, the theology of icons, Palamist theology, soteriology, eschatology, and so forth, I want to know because i will defer to your judgement. Some sources I have read I have managed to forget, but to a large extent I am working off of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, The Orthodox Way, and the writings of St. Athanasius, the Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius of Salamis, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Ignatius the Martyr, and his friend who wrote one epistle and was martyred around 150 when he was very elderly, whose name I find myself unable to recall, to my horror, and St. John of Damascus, and St. Dionysius, St. Ephrem the Syrian and a few others, plus lectures by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, and his successor at Oxford and the former dean at SVS, Fr. John Behr, and also the homilies of various priests and bishops (I particularly miss Metropolitan Philip Saliba, who died shortly after I converted, but who influenced my decision to a huge extent; I do have to confess to enjoying Fr. Josiah Trenham, meeting him was a real pleasure and i regard him as a great moral theologian).

For example, Fr. Matthew for reasons I can understand, although I do think he would enjoy Traditional Theology, but as a military chaplain I doubt he has either the time or inclination to engage in the silly arguments where members from a certain Restorationist denomination that hates Roman Catholics and keeps flaming us in their efforts to flame our Catholic brethren (I am pretty sure their founder was unaware our churches existed as she fails to mention us in our ecclesiastical histories and engages in the usual false dichotomy between Catholics and Protestants, and consequently members of this denomination often deny our existence, at a minimum being unable to accept the fact we were never under Roman jurisdiction.

 

[prodromos]

unlike in the EO case, doesn't come down to one bishop whose name we can remember and venerate a la Mark of Ephesus

Our rejection of Florence wasn't just down to St Mark of Ephesus, but he is the one remembered for the stand he took throughout the Council. Several bishops, on their return from Florence, admitted that they had betrayed the Orthodox faith and were ostracized by their flock, and while there were a few bishops who tried to push the union, the monastic, clergy and lay people were largely against it.

 

[dzheremi]

Our rejection of Florence wasn't just down to St Mark of Ephesus, but he is the one remembered for the stand he took throughout the Council. Several bishops, on their return from Florence, admitted that they had betrayed the Orthodox faith and were ostracized by their flock, and while there were a few bishops who tried to push the union, the monastic, clergy and lay people were largely against it.

Sorry, that was poor phrasing on my part. I just meant that we don't have one particular bishop whose name we remember in connection with rebuking the proposed union at Florence, whereas you guys do. Our rejection of it came with the realization that the Latins intended it to be submission to the Pope of Rome and all that, as the OO delegates did not understand that to be what they were signing up for at the time. That understanding was seemingly clear to the people back in their home countries, however, as I am unaware of any actual union coming from it at the time, nor any union period coming until quite some time afterwards. Witness, for instance, that the Roman Pope did not establish his "Patriarchate of Alexandria" for the Coptic Catholics until 1824, while "Ethiopic Rite Apostolic Exarchate of Addis Ababa" was not founded until 1951, both of which obviously significantly postdate the Council of Florence (1431-1449).