Council Day 4 Reflection

As I, Theclus, am here representing my Bishop, who happens to be sick, I am also representing his best interests.  I do not think that this canon regarding metropolitan bishops is in his best interests. While I do not deny the lineage of the metropolitan bishops, I am concerned with the terms “primary authority” and “complete authority”. These leave little room for conflict resolution on behalf of “smaller” bishops because there is no room for bishops like mine to stand up to the powerful men who will, without a doubt, shape the church to their liking and ignore the concerns and opinions of those who do not have as much of a say. We saw just this during council, when non-metropolitan bishops were forced to resign their desires in the interest of unity. I am concerned that in the future, there will be no system checking to ensure that there is no abuse of power. Yes, they should be trusted to do that themselves, however I think we have seen throughout this council that metropolitan bishops do not stray from one another. I am worried that the phrasing of this canon leaves no room for a checks and balances system. Nor does it leave much room for the inclusion of a “pope”, as Vito suggested. If metropolitan bishops have “complete authority”, what would the pope have? Would he/she merely serve as a figurehead of the church?

I am in agreement with the second canon. After this council, I do not believe that future councils assembled at will should have the right to up and remove or change facets of the church that we have deemed appropriate and orthodox. I am still concerned however that this canon is in contradiction to the first.

css.php