However I might feel about the criticism itself, I rather prefer the way you rephrased Dr. Nassif’s argument (#39, last paragraph) than the way Dr. Nassif himself did. Thank you for taking the time to engage some of my concerns.

the sinner,
SubDn. Lucas

Let me clarify something though:

I would contend, that an Icon–a holy Image–is ontologically an icon; that is what it is. By saying that an Icon is ontologically an icon, though is to also say what it ontologically is not. An icon, by definition, is not ontologically the Person depicted; rather, it manifests that Person. Therefore, I conclude that to say that X is ontologically an Icon of Y, is not to say X is ontologically Y.

Forget the term “ontological” when speaking of icons. It does not work.

What you are trying to say is that the representation of the person in the icon partakes of the grace that person possesses. You are searching for terms that express in some comprehensible way the relationship between subject and prototype. That relationship is entirely one accomplished by the grace of God (through the Holy Spirit), and not one of nature (which the term “ontological” implies).

Perhaps there was confusion about how I apply this to the bishop. I begin with the assumption that we speak of a man who is Bishop, not an abstract ‘office’. That man, as bishop, is mystically an icon of Christ. The Preaching of the Gospel was present at his Consecration, and he fulfills that in the Liturgy and his work.

Watch out too for the term “mystical.” It is usually a fuzz word, used to hide sloppy thinking. Yes, I know that is heresy to some Orthodox ears, but sloppiness is sloppiness no matter what you might be talking about.

The Bishop represents Christ in the assembly of those called out by the Gospel only if He himself preaches that same Gospel. That’s what it comes down to. He represents Christ only if he walks in the grace that given by Spirit at his ordination. It is not the mitre or the robes, or even the laying on of hands that constitutes his calling and vocation as Bishop. It is constituted by his hearing of the Gospel and walking in it, which is to say walking in the Spirit of God as St. Paul instructs. Only in this way is the Body of Christ built up and his calling fulfilled.

Nassif’s argument is not that the Byzantine regalia should be shelved. Rather, he is arguing that the understanding of how the Church is constituted and how it functions (ecclesiology) has devolved into a model of static monarchism that displaces the dynamic and creative work of the Holy Spirit within the Church.

Maybe I misunderstand Dr. Nassif’s words:

Perhaps we should examine historical accretions that have attached themselves to the office of bishop and which mislead the flock about the servant nature of Christian leadership.

The ‘historical accretions’ that he mentions are:

wearing the literal crown of the fallen Byzantine Emperors … titles such as “Despot” and “Master” … ordination of a cathedral bishop…described as an “enthronement”.

But, it seems a simple reading of Dr. Nassif’s own words state precisely that he is suggesting we change our received praxis.

This has been the only part of the essay with which I have publicly made issue. I agree that a bishop should proclaim the Gospel. (Regarding issues of jurisdictional unity, and its implications for legitimate ecclesiology, I would be out of my realm.)

I am quite sure that you and I agree, George, on this issue. It may be that Fr. Johannes also does not wish to revise our received praxis, I do not know. But I am trying to engage Dr. Nassif’s essay–or, a specific part of it–because this suggestion and others like it have been made by others. I am not sure that we Orthodox in America have been as critical in examining such suggestions as we ought to be.

I thank you for your kind words.

the sinner,
SubDn. Lucas

To all: The argument as I understand it is the properly vested episcopate which does not preach the Gospel. This is what I take to mean Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees as “whited sepulchres.” Jesus it should be remembered did not disdain the Pharisaic sect, the Temple, the Law of Moses, the priestly ritual, etc. He condemned those who upheld the letter of the Law but not the spirit of the Law.

What do I mean by a bishop who “does not preach the Gospel”? Some examples: When he celebrates the mysteries in a foreign tongue (which he may not understand and the majority of the people certainly don’t), when “outsiders” are not welcomed, when he is hindered from ordaining qualified priests and deacons, when he is moved about willy-nilly as a traveling admnistrator, when he engages in moral transgression, when he consents to an uncanonical situation (such as what we have here in North America) etc.

All of these are examples of “preaching a different Gospel.” This is what phyletism is at the very least. If we wanted to press this to its logical conclusion, then we would have to say it’s a heresy, after all, that’s what the council of Constantinople in 1872 did.

And let’s finally put our cards on the table: the contours of the Church in North America are delineated by ethnic considerations, therefore, one can say that outside the boundaries of the local autocephalous church, the Church as such does not exist on this continent. Indeed, it cannot. Admittedly, this is speculative but this is what happens when one follows arguments to their logical conclusion (and I pray this isn’t the logical conclusion).

forgive me, the sinner

I would contend, that an Icon–a holy Image–is ontologically an icon; that is what it is. By saying that an Icon is ontologically an icon, though is to also say what it ontologically is not. An icon, by definition, is not ontologically the Person depicted; rather, it manifests that Person. Therefore, I conclude that to say that X is ontologically an Icon of Y, is not to say X is ontologically Y.

Perhaps there was confusion about how I apply this to the bishop. I begin with the assumption that we speak of a man who is Bishop, not an abstract ‘office’. That man, as bishop, is mystically an icon of Christ. The Preaching of the Gospel was present at his Consecration, and he fulfills that in the Liturgy and his work.

Why then, must we strip away the royal vesture and liturgical praxis from this man who is an icon of Christ? Why is stripping away these accoutrement necessary for the right and clear proclamation of the Gospel? If he is not properly preaching the Gospel, how does stripping all this away restore his proper role? It is presented as self-evident in Dr. Nassif’s essay, I contend that it is not self-evident.

the sinner,
SubDn. Lucas

Look, terms like ontology, nature, etc. have very specific meanings. When you say for example, “…the nature of the office,” well, offices don’t have natures (an “office” only exists as an abstraction until a person fills it). Distinctions like this are important, very important in fact, when marshaling arguments about “iconic representation” and the like.

Further, when using terms like “ontological” or “nature” to describe an ecclesiastical role as “iconic”, you are implying a one to one relationship of subject and prototype in terms of being, as if there is no real distinction in substance between them. But this is theologically inaccurate. That’s why the terms matter.

What makes Christ “present” is the preaching of the Gospel. This is true even of the sacraments, which are always contextually framed within the preaching. That’s what the Liturgy really is. All the words, whether they be petitions, hymns, creed, and most important the reading of Scripture, provides the existential context within which the sacraments are performed (elements transformed).

At this point I feel I must ask: should I expect a treatment of my questions (see post #16), or should I merely expect questions about terms ad infinitum? I confess to feeling somewhat insulted–perhaps you do not realize how this comes across: as a deflection, and a refusal to actually engage in discussion. You are not obliged to discuss anything with me, but I do wish we could just be plain about it. Forgive me.

the sinner,
SubDn. Lucas

What recently transpired within the Antiochian jurisdiction was the exact opposite of the criteria I listed. A foreign synod supposedly demoted the American bishops and the same foreign synod supposedly reversed itself. (I use the words “supposedly” because I cannot read Arabic and I can’t for sure say what really happened back on Feb 24 or in June. And I still don’t understand the different between “auxiliaries” and “assistants”.)

Same with the GOA’s “Holy Eparchial Synod.” Although they are quite autonomous, they have been overridden at least three times by the Phanar that I know of within the last five years. And of course, the Charter fiasco was imposed from outside and never submitted to the people or the local bishops.

Sbdnc Lucas, thank you for your kind words.

I beg your pardon, but I think my questions (post #16) can be answered with or without a discourse on what an icon is, and how a bishop fulfills that role (actively or ontologically).

I say this because they were asked separate from the conversation that developed around Mr. Taylor’s comment (#14) which started this separate line. I understand if you don’t want to engage them, but would appreciate it if that were acknowledged on other relevant grounds.

the sinner,
SubDn. Lucas

IOW, if the Bishop is the “icon” of Christ (which I believe he is) in the ekklesia (the Greek matters here), is it because of his fidelity to the Gospel, or is it because of other reasons?

What do you really mean when you use the term?

This is not totally true, though it is the position most recently defended by Bps. Tikhon and Nikolai in the OCA.

A bishops is ‘autonomous’ only as part of a local Synod, either a Metropolis or a local church. He is answerable to his Synod and can be overruled by them, even removed from office, moved or deposed.

Orthodox theology – especially in its interactions with Rome – is rediscovering a language for its own forms or primacy. Some local churches are highly centralized giving the head of that local church a great deal of power; others are very decentralized where all ‘power’ resides in either the Synod or the local diocese. Either way, though, there are primacies in the Orthodox Church beyond that of the diocesan bishop.