Posted on 01/13/2014 3:03:06 PM PST by NYer
The recent statement by the Moscow Patriarchate “on the problem of primacy” is born of desperate, and desperately sad, insecurity.
Pope Francis meets with Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of ecumenical relations for the Russian Orthodox Church, during a private meeting at the Vatican Nov. 12. (CNS photo/L'Osservatore Romano vi a Reuters)
I glanced at the Russian statement in the lazy days of the Christmas break, and seeing little that is new or interesting, asked myself: Have I not said everything that needs to be said in my Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity? But in re-reading the statement a few days ago, I found that perhaps there are a few things to comment on. The Russian statement purports to offer an alternative Orthodox response to the 2007 Ravenna document (about which I have published elsewhere) of the official international Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, a meeting from which the Russians absented themselves for reasons I have always found less than convincing.
And that is also my response to this new statement of theirs: it is less than convincing.
Let us pick up at paragraph 3 and its opening claim: "On the level of the Universal Church as a community of autocephalous Local Churches united in one family by a common confession of faith and living in sacramental communion with one another, primacy is determined in conformity with the tradition of sacred diptychs and represents primacy in honour" (emphasis in the original).
The statement, not surprisingly, never defines this "primacy in honour," though it uses the phrase several subsequent times. I'm not surprised that this phrase is left vague because it is only useful when it is vague. What, exactly, does "honor" mean? I think the operative assumption for most people means "having no real power over anything or anyone," rather like the Queen in my native Canada: sure, she's officially head of state (exercised through her proxy, the Governor General), but she can do nothing except wave from her landau on ceremonial drives to open Parliament, which involves no more authoritative a task than simply reading a tedious “throne speech” in which she's had no input whatsoever, everything having been decided by "her ministers," right down to the commas in the text. If that's the kind of papal primacy "honor" entails, then who won't sign on to it? Such a pope, in other words, would be a completely toothless and indeed useless titular head of the church—a smiling, avuncular fellow we could all safely ignore when it suited us. The statement in fact admits this: "Primacy in the Universal Orthodox Church...is the primacy of honour by its very nature, rather than that of power" (no.5).
But "primacy of honor" has never meant that in the early Church, as the Jesuit historian and recent Ratzinger Prize recipient Brian Daley (himself secretary of the North American Orthodox-Catholic dialogue) demonstrated more than twenty years ago now. As I have crankily put it in the past, no person, Orthodox or otherwise, should again be permitted to open his or her mouth and utter this phrase until s/he has read and digested Daley's article, "Position and Patronage in the Early Church: the Original Meaning of 'Primacy of Honour'," Journal of Theological Studies 44 (1993). There Daley demonstrates beyond all doubt that what the ancients meant by that phrase is far different from how we imagine it. Such a primate did in fact have considerable authority, and was far from being a toothless titular. The Russian statement's failure to deal with the evidence unearthed by Daley is a fatal weakness.
The Russian statement, conveniently and not surprisingly, dodges all this and instead fixates (as the Russians are known to do) on rather arcane liturgical questions: the role of the diptychs—basically prayers for bishops used in the Byzantine liturgy—for here they can claim that "the canons on which the sacred diptychs are based do not vest the primus (such as the bishop of Rome used to be at the time of Ecumenical Councils) with any powers on the church-wide scale." Of course they don't: that was never their function. This is akin to saying "my Honda Civic owner's manual doesn't tell me how to fix my furnace." If we are going to treat primacy through a liturgical lens, then I much prefer we do so safely in the hands of someone competent to handle the matter that way, such as my Ukrainian Orthodox friend Nicholas Denysenko, who teaches at Loyola Marymount in Los Angeles, in his recent article, "Primacy, Synodality, and Collegiality in Orthodoxy: A Liturgical Model" (Journal of Ecumenical Studies 48 [2013]).
The other fatal weakness in this statement is this claim, absurd even to the recent history of Russian hierarchical structures, as I demonstrated in my book: "Throughout the second millennium up to today, the Orthodox Church has preserved the administrative structure characteristic of the Eastern Church of the first millennium" (no.4). One would have expected better things from educated hierarchs and theologians at this level. This kind of romantic nonsense, which one sees with depressing regularity in the Orthodox blogosphere, patently re-writes the past to suit today's agenda and insists that nothing has changed in Orthodoxy, and such rewriting is, as another great Jesuit historian, Fr. Robert Taft, has put it, the kind of thing that makes knowledgeable people resort to laughter, mockery, and sarcasm. Russian ecclesial structures have changed so much even since 1945 (and again in the last two decades) that the idea they have "preserved the administrative structure characteristic...of the first millennium" is, well, risible.
In the end, then, this statement advances nothing and, in fact, seems to have done more damage than good, starting with intra-Orthodox relations, as Metropolitan Elpidophoros makes clear in the first sentence of his statement: "the Church of Russia seems once again to choose its isolation both from theological dialogue with the Catholic Church and from the communion of the Orthodox Churches." This is very sad, and totally unnecessary—as well, of course, as being theologically unsound. ]
But let us be frank: we are not dealing here with theology. Theology is merely a masquerade for questions of geopolitical significance and Russian nationalism. We are dealing with a country still reeling from the collapse of its Soviet empire in 1991, still struggling to find its way, still trying to differentiate itself (as recent and ongoing events in Ukraine make plain) from its neighbors, to say nothing of Western Europe or the United States. In this light, the Russian statement makes more sense: it is an attempt to keep "far from the madding crowd" and the emerging consensus, both within the rest of Orthodoxy and between that Orthodoxy and Catholicism, on the issue of primacy. For Moscow knows that if Orthodoxy and Catholicism unite, then its claims to being some kind of centre of significance and power will be forever dashed—and just as it seems on the precipice of finally toppling Constantinople and its pitifully few remaining Orthodox Christians (as Metropolitan Elpidophoros rightly argues, the Russian statement is really about advancing a wholly novel "primacy of numbers" [2, ii]). But if united to Rome, with its 1.5 billion Catholics (and growing by hundreds of thousands every year), then Moscow will return to being—if crude numbers are what we are considering—very peripheral indeed, and continuing to sink farther and farther down the list as its demographic death-spiral deepens.
In sum, this is a statement born of desperate, and desperately sad, insecurity. And there is no reason for that: in any coming Orthodox-Catholic unity, there is no reason to doubt that Moscow would continue to be given appropriate honor (!) and respect. Like many Eastern Christians—and Western Christians for that matter—I myself love much of the Russian liturgical, musical, and architectural traditions, and many of her saints (Seraphim of Sarov, John of Krondstadt, Xenia of Petersburgh, to name just a few). There is a greatness in the soul of the Russian Church, not least through her suffering in the past century, which is not honored by this document. Let us pray it is soon trashed just as the bogus “Soviet constitution” guaranteeing free elections was rightly rubbished.
Ping!
....let us be frank: we are not dealing here with theology. Theology is merely a masquerade for questions of geopolitical significance and Russian nationalism. We are dealing with a country still reeling from the collapse of its Soviet empire in 1991, still struggling to find its way, still trying to differentiate itself (as recent and ongoing events in Ukraine make plain) from its neighbors, to say nothing of Western Europe or the United States. In this light, the Russian statement makes more sense: it is an attempt to keep "far from the madding crowd" and the emerging consensus, both within the rest of Orthodoxy and between that Orthodoxy and Catholicism, on the issue of primacy. For Moscow knows that if Orthodoxy and Catholicism unite, then its claims to being some kind of centre of significance and power will be forever dashed—and just as it seems on the precipice of finally toppling Constantinople and its pitifully few remaining Orthodox Christians (as Metropolitan Elpidophoros rightly argues, the Russian statement is really about advancing a wholly novel "primacy of numbers" [2, ii]). But if united to Rome, with its 1.5 billion Catholics (and growing by hundreds of thousands every year), then Moscow will return to being—if crude numbers are what we are considering—very peripheral indeed, and continuing to sink farther and farther down the list as its demographic death-spiral deepens. In sum, this is a statement born of desperate, and desperately sad, insecurity.
In the East there is someone that causes the western liberal's maniacal laughter to stop. Vladimir Putin. He has real world power, which causes the liberal media to fearfully ignore or warp his image. Like a good Christian King he leads a nation to Christ. Deep down in their evil souls they shriek like devils because they know Christ is true God and true power that they cannot defeat. They thought the Bolshevik revolution destroyed Holy Mother Russia. Christ cannot be defeated and his servant Putin has welcomed Christ and His church.Related threads:
-- from the thread US threatened by Russia's Christianity
All of the rushin’ and the roamin’ around gives them plenty of exercise. ;-)
All of the rushin’ and the roamin’ around gives them plenty of exercise. ;-)
There is no theological argument against a reunification, but plenty of political ones. This is one of them, a specifically Russian one; this one exists because, having lost the Cold War, the USSR 2.0 of which the Moscow Patriarchate is the state Church would like to wax as a Eurasian (emphasis on Asian) power.
However, do we in the West wish a reunification with a servile Church of Stalinist make?
And, at the same time, can the Orthodox expect preservation and stability of the Eastern Rite when Rome cannot settle it with SSPX?
In the long history of the Church, the presiding hierarch of the universal Church was the bishop of Rome. After Eucharistic communion with Rome was broken, canonically the presiding hierarch of the Orthodox Church is the archbishop of Constantinople.FIRST WITHOUT EQUALS
This shows that the real player in reunification talks should be the Ecumenical Patriarch, who also happens to address the issue in good faith, -- unlike someone else we know.
This guy is dripping with naked hatred for the Orthodox Church, so it’s hard to take him too seriously.
“the kind of thing that makes knowledgeable people resort to laughter, mockery, and sarcasm.”
Even wish-casting with enthusiasm for the demographic demise of Orthodox Christians:
“Moscow will return to being very peripheral indeed, and continuing to sink farther and farther down the list as its demographic death-spiral deepens.”
Then an over-the-top insult comparing a church document on primacy with the Soviet Constitution, because it doesn’t agree with his view of primacy. The Russian church suffered one of the biggest martyrdom’s in Christian history at the hands of the Soviets, really disgusting for him to throw this kind of words around.
The phrase “primacy of honor” is not some new innovation or corruption. It’s from the 3rd canon of the 3rd ecumenical council.
“‘The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, since this city is the New Rome.’”
This is further explained by the 4th ecumenical council (451) which said,
“‘The fathers properly gave preference to the see of the Ancient Rome since this was the imperial capital. For the same reasons the 150 holy bishops also granted equal privileges to the most holy see of the New Rome, rightly judging that the city that received the honour of being the city of the emperor and the senate and having equal privileges with the Ancient Rome should also be elevated in church matters, just as the former was, and that it might be second after it.’”
Notice the reasons stated for the grant of Primacy was because of the political importance of these cities within the empire. Not because of succession from Peter or anything like that.
The pope signed off on this document, as did an overwhelming majority of Bishops from the early Christian Church at the time.
Maybe he can write a story about how the early Christian Church was “less than convincing” and full of “desperate, and desperately sad, insecurity”.
 Dr. Adam A. J. DeVille |
Dr. DeVille's arrogance shines forth right from the beginning of the article:
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Nearly three years ago now, I published a book on Orthodoxy and papal primacy and, at risk of being immodest, have since felt more and more that I had said everything that needed to be said on the topic."- - - - - - - - - - - - -
(That is the first time I ever heard ANY writer say anything like that about ANY subject they wrote about. I don't believe even St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas ever made any such puffed up claims about any of the subjects they wrote about.)
As a Catholic, I have to say that I hope Pope Francis has and will exhibit a lot more sensitivity than Dr. DeVille has here to the massive and horrendous sacrifices our brothers and sisters in the Russian Orthodox Church have had to endure for their faith, especially during recent centuries.
And the way Dr. DeVille casts sarcastic aspersions on the use of the nebulous term "primacy in honour" by the Russian Orthodox leaders, he seems to be oblivious and blissfully unaware of the way a number of murky and uncertain forms of terminology have severely limited the clarity of many recent statements made by the leader of our western Catholic Church, relating to multiple current controversial moral issues and questions, which I would argue are even more important in the scheme of things than reunification issues, and deserve even greater clarity.
And the phraseology used here "...the kind of thing that makes knowledgeable people resort to laughter, mockery, and sarcasm" sounds more like something that B-O and his ilk would say about conservatives and faithful orthodox Catholics, and one would have to be filled with a truckload of chutzpah to try to claim that that was a Christian way of expressing anything.
Somehow, I believe we are going to have to find better ways than this to reach out to each other, if our goal truly is reunification and not further alienation from each other.
Take a look at the sucess of the Eastern Rite Churches which are under the leadership of Rome, what a united Church could truly be.
Also the west is scared of a resurging Russia.
Got to remember that while he was cardinal back home in Argentina, Pope Francis also was spiritual leader of the Eastern Rite Catholic community there.
I wish nothing but success to those trying to re-Christianize Russia but I would be very careful about hitching my wagon to Putin. Comparing him to a "good Christian King" is bizarre.
Tagline.
BTW, I have a lot of respect for Metropolitan Hilarion
. He’s an extraordinarily gifted man.
Articles such as this go a long way to ensuring the current division of East and West last for at least another generation.
The history of the Eastern Rite (Roman Catholic, called Byzantine Catholic) churches begin with two forced unions, one in Brest, Poland in 1596 and another in Uzhgorod (now Slovakia) in 1646. The people were Orthodox people who were forcibly annexed by Rome. After a number of decades, the Roman theology took root. But when many of these people immigrated to America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Vatican decided to forbid married priests, which violated the terms of both agreements. Interestingly, this was only declared for America; in Poland and Slovakia, the Vatican still allows married men to be ordained. Around the turn of the 20th century, a Byzantine rite Catholic priest by the name of Alexis Toth was rejected by the local catholic Bishop John Ireland because Toth was married and had kids. Toth realized that his people were originally Orthodox and led a movement to bring them back to Orthodoxy. The great majority (over 95%) of Russian Orthodox faithful in America in 1910 were immigrants who came to America as Catholics. While some remained Byzantine Catholic, in the late 1920s the Vatican decided to frimly enforce its ban of married clergy in America, and the majority of those who had remained Catholic in Toth’s time were led by Orestes Chornock in another mass return to Orthodoxy.
The Eastern rite churches are anything but a model of church unity, and the original union of these people with the Roman church was both forced and deceptive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.