Questions

[Macrina]

If you are an Orthodox group in schism with all of the patriarchates, how long can you remain in schism before being considered a broken off branch, so to speak? And/or loosing recognition of any apostolic succession from within such a group as in schism with all patriarchates?

Hello Macrina,

What do you see as schism from all the patriarchates? Do you mean not being in communion with certain people who live in a specific city?

How do you understand apostolic succession, how is it passed on and what is the content of what is passed in succession from the Apostles?

(These are not 'trick' questions, I just re-read your post and realized in my first reading I didn't understand what you were asking.)

Hello Fr Mark.
I think you may better understand my question now. Let me begin with your last question to me. I understand apostolic succession as the teachings of the Apostles passed on by our bishops.
I am told by other Orthodox that we are in schism because we are not in communion with any of the patriarchates. To the average person like me, that doesn't really mean as much as having a true bishop. And I thank God everyday that I do.
Is a patriarchate really of any importance. I don't live by any nor are any in my country, so they are non existent to me.

Are you asking me these questions to show me that bishops do not need any patriarchates? If they do not, then where does that leave them from others perspective. Do such groups become like Anglicans or something?

Really I'm just trying to understand better where I stand amidst this. Have I run from the "reformed" Protestant groups to something like another protesting group?

I was raised as a Christian, but in my early 20's God revealed His Son to me. But there were no Orthodox churches here where I live, nor had God revealed The Church to me yet (that happened some 20yrs later). So I tried to go to some church, wound up with the Baptist, so my children would know from my bringing them to church that they should grow up and continue to go to church. The Baptist church at that time seemed like a decent enough choice considering my other choices. They had a good historic bible study and held to a doctrine of individual soul liberty which would allow me to leave that church and not be condemned in my conscience as some sort of spiritual harlot. Myself and siblings were raised with childhood games, as previous generations had passed onto us, to deter us from any interest in Roman Catholicism. So that was never an option.

Now I am a grandmother, and I see more and more Islam influencing or trying to influence my grown children. They have tried to indoctrinate my son already. I am trying hard to root them in an Orthodox church in the midst of all the diverse religions in my country where freedom of religion means anything goes.

So I guess I want some assurance that there is something of a unified front to slow the attacks. Is that unreasonable?

[Macrina]

If bishops do not need to be in agreement with patriarchates then:
Does a bishop need to be within a synod? If so,
Can a bishop leave his synod and start a new synod with other bishops? Or does he need to find an existing synod?

From what I have read on church history, bishops who were deposed by a synod or council of synods such as a patriarchate, were accepted by other synods or patriarchates. Thus this seems important to them to me.

One more question. Of the Traditional/True Orthodox Churches, are there three or more synods among them that are in communion and agreement?

[Mark Templet]

Dear Macrina,

If we trace the structure of the Church back to its roots among the first Christians we see that initially bishops we overseers of individual communities of Christians in a given place. This is where the word comes from in Greek epi = over and scopos = seeing; sight, therefore these men were ordained by the laying on of hand by the original Apostles. To this day no bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch is more or less of a bishop than the next one; there is no higher ordination than bishop.
Over time, especially when Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, the oldest Christian communities became sort of sponsors to newer and smaller communities that surrounded them, thus it became advantageous to term certain bishops that had a wide sphere of responsibility as archbishops. Likewise, those bishops of very large cities began to be termed Metropolitan Archbishops. Those communities that had been established by original Apostles and where of great importance (such as a capital city) where given the titles of Patriarch. However, this does not mean that any one bishop has complete authority over any other bishop outside of his see. These are administrative titles not divine ones. For instance, the Patriarch of Alexandria had no business telling the Patriarch of Antioch what to do in his see; both only have jurisdiction within the borders of their own diocese.
Please remember that Orthodox is NOT Roman Catholicism, we do not have a universal hierarch like a Pope. In fact, the Holy Fathers defined the Church as "the bishop surrounded by his people." There is not a single canon that states one must be under a Patriarchate much less be in communion with one. Church history is replete with examples of different local churches being in and out of communion with one another for various reasons.
We True Orthodox are Orthodox because we are orthodox! What that means is that we read the canon that instructs us not to pray with heretics and we live by it rather than joining the WCC as every Patriarchate has done in the 20th century. We read the local canons that were originally accepted by every jurisdiction that states that ANY change to the Church's calendar is anathematized and we accept that and keep the cycles of the Church unchanged.
The question that you should be asking is how every Patriarchate can continue to have Apostolic Succession (as you understand it) given the fact that they have cut THEMSELVES off from that which is orthodox- meaning that which is already established as correct faith and practice. It is they who have committed schism; they have removed themselves from the accepted faith of all the generations of Christians that came before them. Just because we are in the minority among people that call themselves Orthodox on Earth does not mean that we are not the true Orthodox. Every one of those saints that the World Orthodox people venerate on their icons followed the Old Calendar and refused to pray with heretics. These people are living a lie when they claim that they are Orthodox when they hate the ancient ways of the Church. How are they Orthodox then? Because they have taken over big churches and run around calling each other Patriarch?
They are measuring their Christianity by their successfulness, we must measure our Christianity by our faithfulness. It is not we who have cut ourselves off from them, they are the ones who have lopped themselves off from the trunk of the tree and are withering and dieing. We must pray for these poor people and especially take pity and care for the poor Americans who have come to these churches thinking that they are getting into Orthodoxy and are being sold a lie. We must love them and show them the truth. Every chance I get to interact with them I try to show compassion and kindness to them so that they might be encouraged to turn to us when they have a crisis of conscience in their New Calendar Ecumenist Patriarchates. But at no point do we join them in their sin for the sake of "unity" or so that we can say we are in communion with a Patriarch -- THAT IS NOT ORTHODOXY!

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Macrina,

If we trace the structure of the Church back to its roots among the first Christians we see that initially bishops we overseers of individual communities of Christians in a given place. This is where the word comes from in Greek epi = over and scopos = seeing; sight, therefore these men were ordained by the laying on of hand by the original Apostles. To this day no bishop, archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch is more or less of a bishop than the next one; there is no higher ordination than bishop.
Over time, especially when Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire, the oldest Christian communities became sort of sponsors to newer and smaller communities that surrounded them, thus it became advantageous to term certain bishops that had a wide sphere of responsibility as archbishops. Likewise, those bishops of very large cities began to be termed Metropolitan Archbishops. Those communities that had been established by original Apostles and where of great importance (such as a capital city) where given the titles of Patriarch. However, this does not mean that any one bishop has complete authority over any other bishop outside of his see. These are administrative titles not divine ones. For instance, the Patriarch of Alexandria had no business telling the Patriarch of Antioch what to do in his see; both only have jurisdiction within the borders of their own diocese.
Please remember that Orthodox is NOT Roman Catholicism, we do not have a universal hierarch like a Pope. In fact, the Holy Fathers defined the Church as "the bishop surrounded by his people." There is not a single canon that states one must be under a Patriarchate much less be in communion with one. Church history is replete with examples of different local churches being in and out of communion with one another for various reasons.
We True Orthodox are Orthodox because we are orthodox! What that means is that we read the canon that instructs us not to pray with heretics and we live by it rather than joining the WCC as every Patriarchate has done in the 20th century. We read the local canons that were originally accepted by every jurisdiction that states that ANY change to the Church's calendar is anathematized and we accept that and keep the cycles of the Church unchanged.
The question that you should be asking is how every Patriarchate can continue to have Apostolic Succession (as you understand it) given the fact that they have cut THEMSELVES off from that which is orthodox- meaning that which is already established as correct faith and practice. It is they who have committed schism; they have removed themselves from the accepted faith of all the generations of Christians that came before them. Just because we are in the minority among people that call themselves Orthodox on Earth does not mean that we are not the true Orthodox. Every one of those saints that the World Orthodox people venerate on their icons followed the Old Calendar and refused to pray with heretics. These people are living a lie when they claim that they are Orthodox when they hate the ancient ways of the Church. How are they Orthodox then? Because they have taken over big churches and run around calling each other Patriarch?
They are measuring their Christianity by their successfulness, we must measure our Christianity by our faithfulness. It is not we who have cut ourselves off from them, they are the ones who have lopped themselves off from the trunk of the tree and are withering and dieing. We must pray for these poor people and especially take pity and care for the poor Americans who have come to these churches thinking that they are getting into Orthodoxy and are being sold a lie. We must love them and show them the truth. Every chance I get to interact with them I try to show compassion and kindness to them so that they might be encouraged to turn to us when they have a crisis of conscience in their New Calendar Ecumenist Patriarchates. But at no point do we join them in their sin for the sake of "unity" or so that we can say we are in communion with a Patriarch -- THAT IS NOT ORTHODOXY!

Dear Father Mark:

Christ is in our midst!

Thank you. Your post is very right and clear about what the true Orthodoxy is.

With love in Christ.

Priest Siluan

[Macrina]

Fr Mark Templet,
I understand what is meant by True Orthodoxy. However you did not answer my specific questions. If I only take your answer by itself, it begs the question, then what is different about an Orthodox bishop and an evangelical preacher. As in such a comparison they are both the deciding factor for their church or churches.

Also, following such reasoning, would mean that a bishop, meaning any singular bishop, cannot be judged by other bishops. Since he is accountable to no one. Or rather he only accounts himself to his own understanding of things such as canon, scripture, tradition et. all subject to his personal interpretation. Which we both know from experience happens.

A layperson, then, only needs to decide which bishop he/she agrees with. Which is sadly the norm for Americans on religious matters in general. Mainly because of poor Christian education on matters of faith, but is nonetheless true of the average American Christian.

For the record, my inquiries are not to place my bishop in doubt. On the contrary, they are so I will be better suited to give a clear explanation of my actions in the faith. And I believe such is necessary as heresies take new forms. One example would be The Radical Orthodox movement occurring within mainstream Christianity here in the USA. Protestant seminaries looking at such a subject as a "new horizon". (as you know I've already commented to you on Radical Orthodoxy as a form of Sophiology which hasn't been addressed fully by the historic church, yet). To coin the Russian phrase, "the boat of philosophers" (Sophists) was sent into exile, some of them include Orthodox priests, during the Soviet reign.
Anyway, I'm not going to ramble on about that subject. Although it is a growth from within Traditional Orthodoxy.

One can run into all manner of what may seem like madness in the arena of Christianity. :mrgreen:

[Mark Templet]

Dear Macrina,
Sorry, I made my post prior to you posting your second set of questions. So, I shall address this now:

First of all, a bishop is not a single entity, his function is within the context of the Apostolic teaching and tradition that he, and all bishops, have received. We can see the model for this in the 15th chapter of Acts, when the Gentile/Jewish issue had surfaced. Each individual Apostle was not free to "do his own thing" with regards to the issue at hand, rather they met in synod, in Jerusalem, to decide the issue so that they would be of one accord. To this day this is the reality that all bishops are subject. In fact, when a bishop is ordained they make an oath before God when questioned by the bishop's who are about to ordain him, he swears: "I accept what you accept; I reject what you reject." This oath is not just to the bishops standing there in the altar but all bishops past, present, and future. This binds a bishop to act within the context of his Apostolic Succession. If he declares something to be the truth that has been rejected by his fellow bishops (including those that came before him) then he actually loses his authority as a bishop until he repents and is accepted back by his synod.

Does a bishop need to be within a synod?

Hopefully, you can see that this means that there is no such thing as a lone bishop! The definition of what it means to be a bishop first and foremost is to be in concert with the received (orthodox) teaching and tradition. This is what our beef with the Patriarchs is all about-- in the 1920s when Meletios Metaksakis, Patriarch of Constantinople, quite unilaterally changed the calendar of the Church after more that 1900 years. This did not solve a single problem in Orthodoxy and he had no right whatsoever to do such a thing-- NONE!.
The first Apostolic Canon of the Church is that a bishop must be ordained by two or three other bishops. The whole underlying basis of the Church's oversight by her bishops is that they do so in synodal fashion. Anyone that believes that a bishop can make up the rules as he goes along and countermand what the Church has already established is not Orthodoxy. Bishops are guardian of Orthodoxy not innovators!

Can a bishop leave his synod and start a new synod with other bishops? Or does he need to find an existing synod?

This is a complicated question. When the Slavic people had been well established in their Orthodoxy from the Greeks then they began to form their own synods of ruling bishops. This does not mean that they could turn around and do anything they liked, rather they were free to handle things in their own boarders, while they remained faithful to what it meant to be Orthodox and in communion with the Greeks.
Now, if you mean by your question that a bishop can leave his synod because he disagrees with them, then, no, he can't do that. The only exception is when his fellow bishops fall into heresy. For instance, when a Patriarchate was taken over by Arians in the past, the Orthodox bishops of that patriarchal synod were bound by the Holy Canons to break communion with the heretics and as necessary form new synods to oversee the True Church. But if you mean that some bishop just wants to change the calendar and the other bishops tell him no, then no he can't canonically just start up his own new synod of agreeable bishops. That is not keeping his oath, and it is not being of one accord.

From what I have read on church history, bishops who were deposed by a synod or council of synods such as a patriarchate, were accepted by other synods or patriarchates. Thus this seems important to them to me.

I am not 100% sure I understand your statement/question, so perhaps you could clarify this one a bit more for me.

Of the Traditional/True Orthodox Churches, are there three or more synods among them that are in communion and agreement?

Well, that depends on what you mean by "communion and agreement." If you mean full, on paper, con-celebrating communion, then no, there are not three or more and this is to our shame. However, there is a great deal of activity directed toward fixing this issue. Right here on this message board the debates and discussions are underway, this is the first step in this goal-- communication, however rough it is.
However, communion is not just an outward thing. We are not, not in communion either. For instance, ROAC does not maintain that it is the ONLY truly Orthodox Church. We know that there are others here that are struggling to maintain the truth and the Apostolic faith delivered to us and are Orthodox. But the Evil One helps to spread half-truths and innuendo among all people to divide them, we are no exception. In fact, we are the greatest target on his radar screen because of the true witness we show to the world. So, for now we must be patient and not despair because the is not yet a grand unity among the True Orthodox. This does not mean that we are not all part of the same True Church, it just means that we are under fallen human confusion. But at least there are several of us who are talking to each other, which brings the hope of resolution. More will come: more debate, more accusations, but ultimately more love and cohesion.
But let me ask you this, even if there was unity, how does this change things for you and I tomorrow morning? What changes on Sunday? We are still left with our own need to confess our sins, say our prayers, fast, and be watchful of our hearts and minds. This doesn't change because all our bishops served a Divine Liturgy together.

[Macrina]

Fr Mark Templet,
Thank you for answering my questions. You have clarified that bishops are accountable to their synods.

Fr Mark Templet :
But if you mean that some bishop just wants to change the calendar and the other bishops tell him no, then no he can't canonically just start up his own new synod of agreeable bishops. That is not keeping his oath, and it is not being of one accord.

Disagreements aside, that is what bishops who disagree with their synods have done. Find agreeable bishops to start new synods. As you stated, "....there are not three or more and this is to our shame."

Macrina:
From what I have read on church history, bishops who were deposed by a synod or council of synods such as a patriarchate, were accepted by other synods or patriarchates. Thus this seems important to them to me.

Fr Mark Templet:
I am not 100% sure I understand your statement/question, so perhaps you could clarify this one a bit more for me.

For instance, St John Chrysostom was deposed by his eastern synod and patriarchate but was accepted by the western patriarchate of synods. Grant that it wasn't over any major issue, he had condemned some monastics who appealed his decision. But he was able to do what he did nonetheless.
So he found an existing synod to agree with him.

An example right here would be the thread nun Xenia did on the splintered ROCOR groups, an article written by Bp Gregory/Grigory, who is or was a bishop that left his synod and joined another one that must have agreed with him. Forming yet another group.

Even our synod under Met. Valentine has suffered the loss of churches in Russia because the synod renamed (after reforming a new synod) itself which caused it to fall out of the time period for registered Orthodox groups in Russia to retain any properties. As I understand the rules of the Russian government, they only allowed those who had retained their synod names for 15yrs prior to be considered for keeping their churches/properties

Fr Mark Templet :
But let me ask you this, even if there was unity, how does this change things for you and I tomorrow morning? What changes on Sunday? We are still left with our own need to confess our sins, say our prayers, fast, and be watchful of our hearts and minds. This doesn't change because all our bishops served a Divine Liturgy together.

I think I said initially that to the average person like me, none of this matters. We just get up and go to church irregardless of disagreements between bishops. When the rubber meets the road, only God insures the future of His church. On the other hand, if one is to be persecuted in whatever manner, shouldn't they have the right to know why?
I do understand that we must continue to be Orthodox even if we do not have a bishop or church. However, if the small groups which disagree with the patriarchates and other synods do not even agree among themselves, one wonders why they protest among themselves so much. They could get caught up in a cycle of forming more new synods by having some bishops in agreement (I don't know what the minimum bishop count is to do such as forming a new synod).