QUESTION:

1/18/2009: Hello, I was wondering if I could find an answer to a charge Catholics seem to put up. They say that the Orthodox Church lost her apostolic succession when the four great Sees of the Eastern Church had their bishoprics interrupted by Islamic conquerers who installed puppet bishops - therefore only leaving Rome as the sole unblemished see. They also seem to think that we believe that all Church authority is centered on the Pentarchy, rather than the conciliarity of all the canonical bishops. But I'm not sure how to answer their other charges. Here are some quotes from them: "When barbarians controlled Italy, they for the most part did not interfere with the Church, except in the cases of when the Church was trying to thwart them somehow. The Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, took the initiative in appointing puppet bishops and directly giving orders to others. The Pentarchy has basically failed, if you think about it. Rome is not part of the EO church, and the other patriarchates have either been wiped out, puppeteered by the Islamic empires, or fallen to heresy. It's like having a monarchy with no dynasty." "The Eastern Patriarchates don't "still" exist. They were restored, after a huge vacancy during the middle ages." "If the Eastern Orthodox are correct to assert that all authority in the Church is centered on the Pentarchy, then that would mean that the only legitimacy left in their apostolic succession lies in Rome, as the other four posts were interrupted during the Islamic conquests. Correct?" In Christ, Tom.

ANSWER:

Thank you for this question. It does seem that the discussion with your Roman Catholic friends is not very constructive or based on sound understanding of ecclesiology or apostolic succession. These need to be explained (on sound Scriptural and Patristic foundations) because the historical examples you mention can be discussed. Sadly, almost every bishopric has been affected by the political situation - this is true of Rome as well as all the ancient sees, including Thessalonica, etc. Although this is tragic and can have truly negative consequence, the Church (i.e. the local Church or diocese) which is the Eucharistic continues, and the bishop continues to be the visible manifestation and instrument of the unity of the Church in spite of possible irregularities in his appointment. There has been a continual succession of the Eucharistic communities of Alexandria, Rome and Damascus (which merged with Antioch after the people left that city for Damascus) and that is what matters in sound ecclesiology. If the bishopric was vacant for a while, the Eucharistic identity of the Church continued under the presbyters who would have appointed a temporary administrator. This was common in the early centuries during the persecutions. Finally, it is incorrect to say that "all Church authority is centered on the Pentarchy." We would say that the common union of Churches is structured around important cities which provide a "skeleton" and "backbone" to the network of the Communion. These centers, notably the Pentarchy, could be compared to the 5 senses - they avoid a single point of failure and error, thus providing a higher assurance that the faith would be preserved unchanged. From an historic perspective, the ancient Eastern Patriarchates still exist, although their local center may be diminished and threatened (i.e. Constantinople / Istanbul). They function in full communion as always, and in communion with the extended patriarchal and regional structures (Moscow, Belgrade, Athens as an Archdiocese, etc). The 4 ancient Patriarchates have an historic and symbolic role - nothing would change for the Church, the common union, or the Orthodox faith if one of them disappeared...

Keyword: Church, Bishopric, Corrup | Other keywords: Patriarchates