Bishop issues

[choirfiend]

Here's a question I need to answer for a fellow who seems to be having trouble understanding the Orthodox manner of giving more honor to some and regarding some people as more holy. His immediate concerns are addressing Bishops as Master, having the "seat of the Bishop" aka a throne, among other things...He has such a big problem with this that he said he has already determined to not attend any divine liturgy with a bishop...He isn't Orthodox and I dont think he gets it and it's obviously causing him some distress...here's what he said~

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It doesn't explain why they are elevated on a throne and adressed as Master.Neither,btw,does explaining how Christians were persecuted,which also I was aware of, explain why monasticism wasn't considered the heart of Christianity for hundreds of years.The point was not why but rather whether or not Christians back then made the same claim.They didn't,and speculating that is was due to persecution is just that,speculation. To me,sitting on a throne and allowing people to address you as Master just doesn't seem to be very humble.I can't imagine Peter or Paul allowing themselves to be glorified in that manner.

[/font]Can anyone help?

 

[Rilian]

A bishop carries forth the charism and authority given to the apostles (to loose, bind and grant forgiveness). He is a living link in a chain to them. Christ appointed the apostles as his servants here on earth, and so the bishop points us to Christ, just as an icon does. By regarding the bishop as our master, we in truth proclaim our submission to Christ.

 

[Photini]

A bishop carries forth the charism and authority given to the apostles (to loose, bind and grant forgiveness). He is a living link in a chain to them. Christ appointed the apostles as his servants here on earth, and so the bishop points us to Christ, just as an icon does. By regarding the bishop as our master, we in truth proclaim our submission to Christ.

The argument I've seen come against this, is the rejection that the authority given to the Apostles is actually passed on beyond the Apostles themselves. How do we address that argument?

 

[xristos.anesti]

Episkopes are many but Episkopia is One, in which every Episkop partakes fully and not partially. Episkopia is the living organism of the Church, which is the body of Christ. So, Episkopia is Christ, for one can not separate Head from the body, what the Head is that is the body.

Fathers would have it simply: Where the Episkop is, there is the Catholic Church!

Christ would have it even simpler (Mt 10. and synoptic parallels).


Why do we call him (episkop) master?
Because he is; not of himself, but of Himself (Logos), for he (episkop) is teaching rightly the faith (through the Holy Spirit) in the Father. So, episkop is a master as we come to Trinity through him.

Who is not in communion with episkop is not in communion with Christ. There is only one that celebrates the Divine Liturgy and that is Episkope, rest of us are through the communion with him partakers of the precious mysteries of the Heavenly Kingdom.

Priest does not celebrate Eucharist, he is doing it according to the antimeson on the altar. Which means that it is Episkope that in reality celebrates the Celebrant. Epiksopes are many, episkopia is One.

Who ever is not in communion with the Episkop is not in communion with Christ.
Who says no to one sent by Christ, says no to Christ.
Who says no to Christ says no to Father.
Who has no Father, has no Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father.
Who has no Father, has no Son that one has no Holy Spirit.
Who has no All-holy Trinity has nothing.
Who, therefore, has no communion with Episkop has nothing.

Many will be lost, because they think logically of the Illogical.
Lord have mercy.

 

[Philip]

Consider what St Ignatius of Antioch wrote c. AD 100 in a letter to the Smynaeans:

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop... It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ[shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.​

Remember, Ignatius was ordained a deacon by St Peter and was a student of St John. The bishop he was telling the Smynaeans to honor was St Polycarp, another student of St John. So, either the Sts Peter and John were very poor at picking followers, or St Ignatius reflects their views. Elsewhere, he writes:

It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who hath glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience "ye may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing," and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, ye may in all respects be sanctified....Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also ye do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And do ye, man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, ye may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that ye are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus ye may always enjoy communion with God....Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.​

The idea of showing the bishop respect is at least as old as the 2nd generation of Christians, the very hearers of the Apostles. Further, these 2nd generation Christians, many of who must have heard the Holy Apostles speak, were to receive the bishop as they would the Master who sent them. And how should they be addressed? Seems obvious to me.

 

[Philip]

The argument I've seen come against this, is the rejection that the authority given to the Apostles is actually passed on beyond the Apostles themselves. How do we address that argument?

With Scripture:

Act 1:15-26
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all [men], shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
​

The Eleven added one to their number, and gave him their authority.

Titus 1:4-5
To Titus, [mine] own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, [and] peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: ​

St Paul seems to have passed his authority onto St Titus.

 

[Philip]

More of the fathers on bishops:

St Clement, a hearer of the Apostles, possibly ordained by St Peter, wrote c. AD 96:

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."...Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blame-lessly served the flock of Christ in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.​

Again, here is a student of the Holy Apostles teaching both Apostolic Succession and the authority of bishops.

 

[Philip]

Forgot to point this out for those interested. When St Clement quoted Scripture, saying

For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."​

he used the LXX, not the Hebrew.

 

[choirfiend]

I dont think he gets the role of the bishop, but I think he understands less how some of the practical applications of the role of bishop plays out in the Church. Thanks for the answers thus far, guys, keep em coming.

 

[Matrona]

When my parish had a hierarchical Divine Liturgy, with the bishop wearing a mitre, a little girl asked afterwards, "Are you the king of the church?"

He explained to her that he wasn't, but that he was here to represent the King.

 

[Vasya Davidovich]

When my parish had a hierarchical Divine Liturgy, with the bishop wearing a mitre, a little girl asked afterwards, "Are you the king of the church?"

He explained to her that he wasn't, but that he was here to represent the King.

Beautifully said. Definitely a wise bishop.

And it drives home to me once more the importance of respecting our bishops (even when they are in error), for just as that little girl recognized something royal in your bishop, so also are we to regard them as living icons and emissaries of Christ.

Thanks for the contribution, Matrona.

 

[Dust and Ashes]

What a wonderful and informative thread!

There is nothing of substance that I could add to the great responses already given but I do have a couple of observations regarding the general situation.

1) It seems to me that of all people a Bishop would understand the great and fearful responsibility he holds because of his position and that generally, that alone would go a long ways toward keeping him humble. Besides, the Bishop himself doesn't decide he's going to sit on a throne and be revered by people. Don't some "run" when they hear they are being considered for Bishop? I know when I first converted, I assumed that because I was an associate pastor in a Protestant Church that I would end up as a priest but now I am deeply relieved that I can't be a priest.

2) It seems to me that a lot of the problems people have with Orthodoxy or Catholicism is directly related to the fact that some human has authority over them. This seems to me to be a simple matter of the independence that has so permeated Protestantism as an overreaction to the hierarchial structure of the RCC.

Independence is usually followed by rebellion. When I was convinced that Orthodoxy was the truth and converted, I determined that I would accept whatever the Church taught rather than demand the Church conform to what I wanted to believe. There were things I had a problem with and didn't want to accept but I dropped my head and accepted them anyway and now I can see the wisdom and truth of those things. Quelling my Protestant rebelliousness...err I mean independence was one of the most critical points in my journey and there are times when I still have to push down some point or other and make an effort to submit myself to the teachings of the Church.

Lord have mercy on me for being such a willful, treacherous creature.

 

[Rilian]

When my parish had a hierarchical Divine Liturgy, with the bishop wearing a mitre, a little girl asked afterwards, "Are you the king of the church?"

When our bishop was here my daughter kept referring to him as "the Egyptian".

 

[The Prokeimenon!]

When our bishop was here my daughter kept referring to him as "the Egyptian".

How neat! We should all be like kids, you know. We should all look at The Bishops, Priests, Icons, each other, etc. with the level of innocent awe that a child has.

It's a shame that we (by which I mean "I") become so cynical, and unable to recognize "The King" in all these people and things.

Moses

 

[Monica child of God 1]

I thought of these passages:

"Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct...Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." --Hebrews 13

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

...Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another" --1 Peter 5

Shouldn't we show honor to the "under shepherds" since they both represent and do the work of the Chief Shepherd?

What choirfiend describes is the same egalitarian spirit that makes it unpalatable for many Christians to show honor to the Theotokos and the saints. It is shockingly unBiblical.

Back to lurking,
M.

 

[Pyotr]

--Hebrews 13

Ah, y'beat me to it!

I'd piggyback on what's been said here (which's been great) and say that, as Christ gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose in the kingdom, thus giving them the authority as rulers of the Church (a la Heb. 13), so the bishop's vestments reflect that authority, which is to be respected. All are not to play an equal role in the Church, since it's never been a democracy. However, as has also been said, bishops are to rule with the good of the faithfuls' souls in mind, not their own pocketbooks or pleasures.

Any bishop doing the latter is unworthy, not only of the vestments, but of the gift of the Holy Spirit which he bears. He will surely come under the greatest condemnation possible on the Last Day.