Can someone please explain to me why, although all the Oriental Orthodox churches are in communion with eachother, they seem to exist in complete isolation from one another?
For example, the Armenians have a Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Syrians have an Archbishop of Jerusalem and the Copts have another.
How can three churches supposedly in communion with eachother have 3 Archbishops of the same one city?
In the Eastern Orthodox Church there are various self-governing churches, Constantinople, Alexandria, Moscow, Antioch, Serbia, Athens, Jerusalem, etc. each headed by a single Archbishop or Patriarch. But there are not multiple bishops in a single city, each representing his own ethnic group.
There is only one Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Theofilos III, who leads the EO faithful in the Holy Land be they Greek, Palestinian, Russian or anything else.
I can understand how this situation can occur in places that are traditionally not Orthodox as a result of immigrants from Egypt, Armenia and the Middle East, etc all building their own churches and bringing their own clergy and bishops, etc. but not in an Apostolic See like Jerusalem.
Having multiple bishops in a single city is a breach of canon law and undermines the Church's collegial unity.
I just don't see how the Oriental Church can claim to be "...ONE Holy and Apostolic Church".
Please don't view this as a polemic or attack against the Oriental Churches, it isn't; I'm just curious as to why you have the structure you have.
Peace
Comments
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are different Sees,
The Coptic Orthodox Church is the See of Alexandria, Sea of St. Mark
The Syrian Orthodox Church is the Sea of Antioch, See of St. Peter.
The other Churches you mentioned belong to one See which is the Sea of Constantinople
Before the great schism of 451, Council of Chalcedonia, there were five major centres or Sees of Christianity:
1-See of Alexandria
2-See of Jerusalem
3-See of Antioch
4-See of Rome and
5-See of Constantinople. All of them were one big family in complete communion with each others and still five Sees.
I do not find any problem with that, on the other hand, I see the strength of the Holy Spirit uniting them in complete agreement.
You ask a valid question; one which I think our two above posters have quite misunderstood. Before I attempt to answer you however, may you please clarify the term "Archbishop" - are you using it synonymously to Patriarch or Metropolitan? Or neither?
Orthodox11,
You ask a valid question; one which I think our two above posters have quite misunderstood. Before I attempt to answer you however, may you please clarify the term "Archbishop" - are you using it synonymously to Patriarch or Metropolitan? Or neither?
In this instance I was using the two terms synonymously, although I do know that there is a distinction between the terms in certain circumstances. However, my real point was how you can have two bishops as head of the same city, regardless of which honorary title they have.
Thanks for taking the time to answer,
God bless
To answer your question: yes, having multiple Bishops of the same Church is, technically speaking, a violation of canon law. Though it is an issue of valid concern, it is merely an administrative abnormality, and not some sort of a heresy or act of schism, since such a violation of canon law is not anathematised by any of the Ecumenical Council's (including those of the EO Communion).
As such, the Oneness of the Holy Orthodox Church is not undermined - we do not have one jurisdiction divided from another jurisdiction, we simply have one jurisdiction overlapping another jurisdiction. However, we remain united in the Holy Eucharist, and hence we remain One in Christ. According to our Orthodox ecclesiology (which i'm sure is shared by your Church), the "One, Holy, Universal, and Apostolic Church" exists in totality within the community of the parish at the commemoration of the Bishop (whether he be directly present or not), which is a form of declaring communion with him, for when that Bishop in turn commemorates the presiding member of the Holy Synod (which for Copts is the Patriarch of Alexandria, for the Armenians the Patriarch of Antioch etc.), that Bishop in turn declares the communion of his diocese with the Holy Synod, and finally when that presiding member of the Synod declares the communion of his Synod with the presiding members of other Synods (i.e. the diptychs), he in turn declares the communion of his Synod with theirs. So in essence, the Oneness of the Catholic Orthodox Church is, in its entirety, embodied in the local parish, diocese, archdiocese, synods, and the totality of the Church. The Copts, Armenians, Syrians etc. are all in Communion and One in the Eucharist and One according to our Orthodoxy, and in our hope of the life to come.
P.S. This sort of overlapping episcopal jurisdiction is in fact not absent from the EO Church. It is a problem that the EO in the United States in particular are having trouble dealing with. As I have implied above, although an administrative abnormality that should be rectified, it is nothing that should be viewed to the extent of warranting anathema or anything serious like that, which would undermine the unity of the Church.
I am not sure if this is the exact case with Jerusalem, but it is a possibility, and even if it is not, I maintain the response in my above post in any event.
In North America, Europe and Australia, I believe the situation will have to be examined closely in future years. The OO immigration to these countries is fairly new, not exceeding 30 years and growing in the late 80's and early 90's, and to recent times, there were few parishes and priests for each church covering huge territories. Once the dioceses are well established, they will look into "uniting" many different ethnic episcopate existing in one area under one hierarch or find a certain structure to satisfy the needs of the believers.
I would argue that it is out of pure organizational reason, better resource handling and effort channeling that this step should be taken. I do not feel comfortable with breaking a church law, although I agree with Iqbal point of view, as the church canons exist to serve the people and not vise versa. It gives a precendent to innovators to begin changing other more important canons that guard the faith.
The reasons why different episcopates exist within the traditionally unorthodox countries is the difference in rites and language of worship. This should be elminated gradually with the new generations, born in the land of immigration, taking over and the respective language of the country becoming dominant in the churches. For the rites, it is possible to have a new unified liturgy for all ethnic groups. In fact, some bishops in the Coptic Church, in the US, are already thinking abou this step as a tool for evangelism.
It is not a priority, but it will help in many aspects. Most of the metropolitan cities have the problem of overlapping dioceses due to the high flux of immigrants to the places where jobs and opportunities are. With many bishops serving the same area, the opportunity for evangelism in smaller areas and cities is neglected. Better coordination will satisfy both needs: Serving the immigrants and their children, and evangelism to the original inhabitants.
Jerusalem and Palestine (Israel), including the occupied territories and Gaza, is in a way not different than the countries that are not originally orthodox. The Syrian and Armenian Episcopate have been established in these countries to serve the minorities that have immigrated from their original countries and found in Palestine (Israel) their new home . For the Coptic Church, the Episcopate in Jerusalem serves Palestine and the Gulf area, as many Copts live in Dubai, Abo Dhabi, Oman and Kuwait, and recently they have been allowed to build churches in some areas.
In North America, Europe and Australia, I believe the situation will have to be examined closely in future years. The OO immigration to these countries is fairly new, not exceeding 30 years and growing in the late 80's and early 90's, and to recent times, there were few parishes and priests for each church covering huge territories. Once the dioceses are well established, they will look into "uniting" many different ethnic episcopate existing in one area under one hierarch or find a certain structure to satisfy the needs of the believers.
I would argue that it is out of pure organizational reason, better resource handling and effort channeling that this step should be taken. I do not feel comfortable with breaking a church law, although I agree with Iqbal point of view, as the church canons exist to serve the people and not vise versa. It gives a precendent to innovators to begin changing other more important canons that guard the faith.
The reasons why different episcopates exist within the traditionally unorthodox countries is the difference in rites and language of worship. This should be elminated gradually with the new generations, born in the land of immigration, taking over and the respective language of the country becoming dominant in the churches. For the rites, it is possible to have a new unified liturgy for all ethnic groups. In fact, some bishops in the Coptic Church, in the US, are already thinking abou this step as a tool for evangelism.
It is not a priority, but it will help in many aspects. Most of the metropolitan cities have the problem of overlapping dioceses due to the high flux of immigrants to the places where jobs and opportunities are. With many bishops serving the same area, the opportunity for evangelism in smaller areas and cities is neglected. Better coordination will satisfy both needs: Serving the immigrants and their children, and evangelism to the original inhabitants.
That does make sense, but for the fact that the Armenians (if not also the Syrians) have had a presence in the Holy Land for centuries (hence the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem). Therefore any Copt emmigrating to the Holy Land should find himself under the Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem rather than an additional Coptic Archbishop to cater for him purely on ethinc grounds, and so one would not expect to see in such an ancient See the problems facing the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) in the U.S. and Western Europe.
Nor does there seem to be any other reason for the "overlap" meantioned by Iqbal since the Armenians and Copts have never broken communion with eachother. If (God Willing) the Coptic Church and the EO should ever reunite, it seems unavoidable that there be, for a time atleast, two Patriarchs of Alexandria (until an agreement was reached between the two sides as to the makeup of a Synod, etc). In such a case "overlap" would have a logical cause, however unfortunate, but no such thing can be said for the Armenians.
Despite your answers it still seems to me that, whilst unity consists in theory, the three groups: Copts, Ethiopians & Eritreans; Syrians & Indians and the Armenians exist, de facto, in complete isolation from eachother, beyond a state of merely self-government.
Another question I have on a similar topic. I will confess to being quite ignorant on the Ethiopian Church, and so feel free to correct me.
How did two churches/juristictions (Coptic and Tawehedo) which until the last century were one (i.e. both under the Patriarch of Alexandria) become so radically differentin, not only cultural expression of the faith (which is understandable) but also in its dogma (differing canon of the Bible, adoption of various Judaic elements, foreign to New Testament Christianity, etc.)?
Peace to you both
Again, I would like to point out the fact that the EO Church has its own jurisdictional problems to deal with also. I would assume that your Church would defend its current unity despite the overlapping jurisdictions, along the same lines as I have above. The canon of the Bible is not a dogmatic issue, so I don’t understand how you can categorise differences in canon as “dogmatic differences.” These differences in canon furthermore, are quite ancient, they are not the result of the Ethiopian Church acquiring an autocephalous status and its own Patriarch.
As for the adoption of “various Judaic elements”, can you please be specific as to what exactly your referring to?
Peace.
Again, I would like to point out the fact that the EO Church has its own jurisdictional problems to deal with also. I would assume that your Church would defend its current unity despite the overlapping jurisdictions, along the same lines as I have above. The canon of the Bible is not a dogmatic issue, so I don’t understand how you can categorise differences in canon as “dogmatic differences.” These differences in canon furthermore, are quite ancient, they are not the result of the Ethiopian Church acquiring an autocephalous status and its own Patriarch.
As for the adoption of “various Judaic elements”, can you please be specific as to what exactly your referring to?
Peace.
I am aware of the juristictional problems facing the EO Church. However, these are due to peolpe immigrating to countries that are not trditionally Orthodox, which is different from the example I gave r.e. Jerusalem.
You also mention that the problems of the OO Church does not constitute schism or heresy, but this does not answer my point that, although unity exists in theory, the de facto situtation is quite different.
With regards to the Ethiopian Church, I know that the differences did not result from it gaining independance in 1948 (which was more or less my point) but rather how such diversity, in issues that are far from superficial, happen under a single Patriarch.
The word "dogma" might have been an incorrect use of words, though my point still stands r.e. differing Biblical canon. By Judaic elements I meant things like circumcision, following the Levitical food laws (no pork, etc), keeping of the Sabbath in addition to the Lord's Day, etc - all things which seem to stand in stark opposition to other Apostolic churches (including the OO Church) which have done away with such practices, following the teaching of Christ's Apostle, St Paul the Divine.
Thank you
But again you have missed my point, which is essentially that unity according to dogma, faith and Eucharistic Communion is de facto unity. There is no such thing as “theoretical” unity; there is nothing “theoretical” about our union in the body and blood of Christ, and our profession of the Orthodox Apostolic faith; it is in fact this, and this alone that represents our de facto unity. Administrative unity was never the means by which the “One Holy Universal Orthodox Church” was “de facto” one; so if such an oneness was never contingent or dependent upon administrative structure, how can such unity ever be undermined by administrative irregularities?
You have adequately proven that there is doctrinal and Eucharistic unity within the Oriental Church and that it is precisely this that defines the unity of the Church, and on this point I agree with you.
However, you have not really adressed why the different juristictions, both clergy and laity, act and operate as if there exists no such unity - the multiple bishops of Jerusalem (a See where there is no logical reason for such an uncanonical structure existing) being an example of this.
Take the Sepulchre itself as an example. I can understand why there are certain parts allocated to Catholics, others to EOs and others to OOs. What I do not understand is why there are bits allocated to Armenians, others to Copts, others to Ethiopians, etc when they're one Church.
Thanks for your answers r.e. Ethiopia btw
I will see what I can do to acquire the information you need from another source. Stavro has already suggested that there exist other Bishops as a matter of practicality (and the Church, as I have stated, has the authority to make exceptions to canon law which derives its very authority from the Church herself); maybe he can tell us the specific practical purposes for which they exist.
Peace.