St. Basil at Synod of Constantinople
Re-posting this message from Mr. Suraj Iype, a man with incredible knowledge and insight but who unfortunately doesn't blog! Learning more of early Church and the men and women who struggled to preserve the Truth is just fascinating.
--- In IndianOrthodox@yahoogroups.com, Suraj Iype, Sivasagar. Assam wrote:
>
> Dear Sunil,
>
> St Basil is said to have been baptized around the year 356 and then traveled all over Syria, Palestine and Egypt gaining first hand knowledge of monasticism. By 358, the Saint had established a monastic house and started work on the Philokalia. So when he attended the Council of Constantinople, he was technically not a layman but a lay-monk. This council is different from the Ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381.
>
> St Athanasius did attend the Nicean Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical councils differed from local synods in the sense that they discussed controversial issues which could not be resolved at the local level and threatened the unity of the Church.
> Thus they were not synods which discussed day to day issues. In such councils, Bishops from all over the empire and beyond came with their advisers and legates (thus deacons and priests known for their faith often accompanied their bishops).
> The Emperor would have been present as convoker. The Pope of Rome who did not attend generally, was represented by his legates and vicar's
> (usually Bishops, but technically could be even a Archdeacon) .
> Thus although it was a gathering of Bishops as successors of the Apostles( just as the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem), others like priests, deacons etc could attend and played some part.
> For ex St Athanasius though then only a deacon attended Nicea as a member of the entourage of St Alexander of Alexandria.
> St Athanasius had flung a Gospel book to strike Arius at a local council in Alexandria, so the saint must have been fairly well known even as a deacon.
>
> Thus although many took part, the decisions were made by the Bishops in their role as successors to the Apostles.
>
> The Episcopal Synod we see in Orthodox churches today, is the gathering of Bishops of one local church to discuss administrative issues. Since we are a comparatively small church, all bishops are members of the Synod. This is not true of all Orthodox Churches. In larger Churches, such as the Greek, Coptic and Russian. There are permanent Synods comprising of some fixed members(usually Metropolitan s/Archbishops) and some rotating members from the unrepresented dioceses. Tibeloyo (General) Bishops and Bishops without their own diocese (like Patriarchal Vicars / Auxiliary Bishops) are not given a vote but can only be observers.
> Each church thus can evolve some systems according to its requirement.
> But in all Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the final authority regarding faith, discipline and canonical order is an 'Episcopal' Synod.
> It is interesting to note that St Vattasseril thirumeni, in his draft constitution published in 1932-33 had explicitly said that the Malankara Church was Episcopal in nature. Had it been accepted into the 1934 constitution, the mess we have in the courts today regarding the rights of parish churches could have been avoided.
>
> Lay participation takes place at other levels which deal with temporal administration. In the Russian Church , the Anglican Church etc bodies like the Malankara Association are called the General Synod or the Local Council.
> We in characteristic fashion, prefer to call the Malankara Association a "Parliament", without realizing that it is a general Synod of Bishops, clerics and laity.
> Thus we cannot say that laymen are not participating in a synod, we are. But then we must look beyond our love of secular/political terminology to a Christian one.
>
> We often love to quote that the Final Authority is the Episcopal Synod of Malankara but the 1934 Constitution in Chapter 7 : Clause 108 , expressly admits that the Aakamana Sunahdos( Ecumenical Council) is the final court of appeal in matters of faith.
>
> Suraj Iype
> Sivasagar. Assam.
>
--- In IndianOrthodox@yahoogroups.com, Suraj Iype, Sivasagar. Assam wrote:
>
> Dear Sunil,
>
> St Basil is said to have been baptized around the year 356 and then traveled all over Syria, Palestine and Egypt gaining first hand knowledge of monasticism. By 358, the Saint had established a monastic house and started work on the Philokalia. So when he attended the Council of Constantinople, he was technically not a layman but a lay-monk. This council is different from the Ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381.
>
> St Athanasius did attend the Nicean Ecumenical Council. Ecumenical councils differed from local synods in the sense that they discussed controversial issues which could not be resolved at the local level and threatened the unity of the Church.
> Thus they were not synods which discussed day to day issues. In such councils, Bishops from all over the empire and beyond came with their advisers and legates (thus deacons and priests known for their faith often accompanied their bishops).
> The Emperor would have been present as convoker. The Pope of Rome who did not attend generally, was represented by his legates and vicar's
> (usually Bishops, but technically could be even a Archdeacon) .
> Thus although it was a gathering of Bishops as successors of the Apostles( just as the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem), others like priests, deacons etc could attend and played some part.
> For ex St Athanasius though then only a deacon attended Nicea as a member of the entourage of St Alexander of Alexandria.
> St Athanasius had flung a Gospel book to strike Arius at a local council in Alexandria, so the saint must have been fairly well known even as a deacon.
>
> Thus although many took part, the decisions were made by the Bishops in their role as successors to the Apostles.
>
> The Episcopal Synod we see in Orthodox churches today, is the gathering of Bishops of one local church to discuss administrative issues. Since we are a comparatively small church, all bishops are members of the Synod. This is not true of all Orthodox Churches. In larger Churches, such as the Greek, Coptic and Russian. There are permanent Synods comprising of some fixed members(usually Metropolitan s/Archbishops) and some rotating members from the unrepresented dioceses. Tibeloyo (General) Bishops and Bishops without their own diocese (like Patriarchal Vicars / Auxiliary Bishops) are not given a vote but can only be observers.
> Each church thus can evolve some systems according to its requirement.
> But in all Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the final authority regarding faith, discipline and canonical order is an 'Episcopal' Synod.
> It is interesting to note that St Vattasseril thirumeni, in his draft constitution published in 1932-33 had explicitly said that the Malankara Church was Episcopal in nature. Had it been accepted into the 1934 constitution, the mess we have in the courts today regarding the rights of parish churches could have been avoided.
>
> Lay participation takes place at other levels which deal with temporal administration. In the Russian Church , the Anglican Church etc bodies like the Malankara Association are called the General Synod or the Local Council.
> We in characteristic fashion, prefer to call the Malankara Association a "Parliament", without realizing that it is a general Synod of Bishops, clerics and laity.
> Thus we cannot say that laymen are not participating in a synod, we are. But then we must look beyond our love of secular/political terminology to a Christian one.
>
> We often love to quote that the Final Authority is the Episcopal Synod of Malankara but the 1934 Constitution in Chapter 7 : Clause 108 , expressly admits that the Aakamana Sunahdos( Ecumenical Council) is the final court of appeal in matters of faith.
>
> Suraj Iype
> Sivasagar. Assam.
>
Comments