Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Denounces Moscow's "3rd Rome" Theory
ORTHODOXOS TYPOS ^ | 15-09-2004 10:15 | ORTHODOXOS TYPOS

Posted on 10/08/2006 7:06:19 AM PDT by kawaii

"ORTHODOXOS TYPOS": Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Denounces Moscow's "3rd Rome" Theory According to the Athens newspaper To Vima of 8 July 2004, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew responded to the "3rd Rome" theory of the Patriarch of Moscow (which had been brought up for discussion during the 8th International Assemblage of the Russian Orthodox Church) by calling it "...foolish, hubristic, and blasphemous," because "...it resounds with the spirit of caesarpapism and vaticanism; something totally unacceptable to the Orthodox Church."

To Vima went on to report that the Ecumenical Patriarch replied specifically to the positions and arguments posited by the attending Church hierarchy and political representatives of Moscow by sending -- via the Secretary of the Assemblage -- letters pertaining to this matter to the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexion; the President of External Affairs for the Russian Church, Metropolitan of Smolensk, Cyril; as well as to some of the politicians in attendance. Along with other matters, the letter contained the following: To the representatives of the Russian government, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: "The gathering together of Orthodox faithful into one flock under the leadership of a single powerful leader, who would be carrying out the agenda of a particular government, will unavoidably lead the Church into becoming nothing more than an organ of that government, and not the means by which mankind achieves salvation." To the Minister of the Exterior, Ivanoff, he stated the following: "The involvement of government into the decision-making process of the Church smacks of unacceptable caesarpapism. During the communist era there occurred an intolerable politicization of the Russian Church. ... We hoped that things would be different after the fall of that monstrous system. However, to our dismay, we see that the current Russian government continues to unhesitatingly interfere, and, indeed, to even 'make policy' concerning matters that are strictly ecclesiastical." The Patriarch went on to ask the following question of the Metropolitan of Smolensk: "Are you telling us that the unity of Orthodoxy is a question of numbers, political strength, secular and diplomatic power?" According to the article in To Vima, the Ecumenical Patriarch went on to declare: "What we have heard regarding the unity of the Church is, in its entirety, an unfortunate echoing of the spirit of vaticanism, which construes unity as a single organizational structure, as opposed to the unity of the spirit and of the heart, which has been the way it has always been construed in the Orthodox Church." To the Vice President of the Parliamentary Committee, the Ecumenical Patriarch emphasized the following: "The foolish theory pertaining to a '3rd Rome' is hubristic (in accordance with the ancient Greek definition of this word [having to do with overweening arrogance] ), and blasphemous. New Rome may be the first among equal Patriarchates, but she has never sought to dominate and exercise power over the other Orthodox Churches. We recognize her primacy in the stewardship of our unity, and she has performed this function humbly and absent any exercise of power." Finally, as reported in the To Vima article, the Ecumenical Patriarch, wanting to send a clear and unambiguous message to all Orthodox faithful everywhere, stated: "Those who speak of a 3rd Rome are totally unsuited to hold leadership positions in the Orthodox Church, because they will play a role in transforming her from a Christ-worshipping faith to a feudalistic organization based upon the exercise of raw power." On the other side of this issue, the official representative of the Russian government, Vladimir Zorin, spoke of the need to unite all of the Orthodox nations "...under the banner of the Russian Church, which is the largest, and, as such, holds the leadership position among the Orthodox Churches." Russian Minister of the Exterior, Igor Ivanoff, stated: "Our diplomatic service cooperates and works with the Russian Orthodox Church, which represents the connecting link between all of the Slavic Orthodox Churches." The Metropolitan of Smolensk, Cyril, stated unequivocally that: "The Russian Orthodox Church holds the de facto first place among all of the other Orthodox Churches because of her great spirituality, her ethics and virtues, her tradition, and her political influence; as such, she speaks for the over 350 million Russians throughout the world. Moreover, she exercises influence in all of the Orthodox Churches of the Balkans, as well as in those countries where the Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are the rightful spiritual heirs of Byzantium." The Vice-President of the Parliamentary Committee declared that the Russian Orthodox Church was "...the only one able to lead a Pan-Orthodox unity of a multinational character. For that reason, the 3rd Orthodox Capital prophesied by Saint Seraphim of Sarof is needed. We must adhere to the historical necessity of founding a '3rd Rome.' " The Metropolitan of Minsk, Philaretos, argued that: "The Church of Constantinople was the Church of the Byzantine Empire, and her role within Orthodoxy has diminished as a result of the termination of that Empire; this has resulted in the Ecumenical Patriarchate becoming increasingly animated by papist tendencies." Finally, the representative of the Metropolitan of Odessa, Milan Gerkas, declared: "We are the leaders of Orthodoxy, and we have to demonstrate that fact."

Orthodoxos Typos. 16 July 2004. p. 6. (Translation by GRECO REPORT staff.)


TOPICS: Ecumenism; Orthodox Christian; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: 3rdrome; constantinople; ep; mp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last
One wonders if the Pope of Rome said the same of Constantinople's secondary primacy...
1 posted on 10/08/2006 7:06:22 AM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kawaii

Sounds like the Patriarch of long-gone Constantinople is envious of the influence the Russian Orthodox have. I guess when your phanar falls below 5,000 envy and thousand year old accomplishments are pretty much all you have.


2 posted on 10/08/2006 7:24:29 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kawaii

Knowing the hunky-dory relationship between the eastern and western church, Popes of the past have probably said much worse, and vice versa.


3 posted on 10/08/2006 7:25:37 AM PDT by gitmogrunt (oppose one farce at the border)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; kosta50; Agrarian

What do you make of this? Is this a response to Moscow's protest of Belgrade or is there something else?


4 posted on 10/08/2006 10:04:15 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; Agrarian; kosta50

Its from September of '04. This is a reaction of the EP to the seemy underside of the 3rd Rome propaganda of Moscow. Years ago I read somewhere that Pan Slavism in the 19th century was actually an off shoot of this idea. In the GOA we came up close and personal with this during the disruptions caused by the problem with the failed archbishop Syridon when Moscow came fishing in troubled American waters.

Notice the ethnocentrism of the comments by the various Russians the EP quotes. This is an example of the heresy of phyletism, something, I am sad to say, the GOA itself has been guilty of to an extent, though more in the past than today. The 3rd Rome idea is a dangerous and uncanonical one all the way around. It may be that the reaction to the Belgrade paper, namely that all the delegates save those of the Russian Church, either voted for it or the Russians feared they would, was born of comments like these from the Russians.


5 posted on 10/08/2006 12:00:50 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

The 3rd Rome mentality saved Christianity in Russia while the EP was selling out to the Catholics for support and subsequently getting sacked by the Muslims.

It's unfair to call it propaganda.

Further without the 'Second Rome' mentality none of the canons at the councils would have come to pass.

Frankly actions of the EP have shown true hubris and deliberate meddling on the canonical territory of other sees.


6 posted on 10/08/2006 5:37:51 PM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Petrosius; Agrarian
The Ecumenical Patriarch is, of course, correct when he asserts that any serious talk of a "3rd Rome" (i.e. Moscow) is uncanonical. Constantinople was elevated to the position of being second to Old Rome in honor by an Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon), and that decision stands.

Barring any theological innovation by the EP, and a resultant non-communion of some or all of the remaining Orthodox Churches, Moscow has no chance whatsoever of filling the role of the "third fiddle" so to say.

But we must understand that the EP's primacy is only temporary until such time when the Vatican (from an Orthodox point of view) returns to Orthodoxy, theologically. The EP is "first in honor" only by default (non-communion with Rome), since the primacy of Peter is established by the same Ecumenical Council.

If, for example, the Turks decide to close or bulldoze the premises of the tiny EP's parish, his office remains and the honor of that office retains all the privileges, regardless if what is physically left of Constanitnople is but a heap of lumber and bricks.

The next Ecumenical Council may very well consider granting Moscow the status of the "3rd Rome," because of the size of its jurisdiction, just as Constantinople was elevated over other older Churches simply because of the city's imperial significance (as was Old Rome for that matter). But such elevation of the MP could not be a hostile act of demoting the EP any more than the establishment of the EP was a hostile act of demoting the Pope (which it wasn't).

That said, the EP was not always right, and needed to be corrected. One example, for instance, is the (in)famous Pat. Meletius IV (Metaxakis), who opened a wound that is still wide open and sore, of introducing the "New Julian Calendar" (he didn't introduce the Gregorian Calendar), and who actually recognized Anglican orders and at one time proclaimed Anglican-Orthodox union (of course no other orthodox Church did!).

But he also showed, as did the current EP, some jurisdictional ambitions, having absorbed the Orthodox Church of Finland (whose calendar in uncanonical, by the way, because that Church celebrates Pascha according to the Catholic calendar, and apparently with EP's blessings), which was jurisdictionally under the MP.

The laity must be very much aware of personal corruption among the clergy, especially the senior clergy. Considering that they all come from monastic ranks, such wanton ambitions and power hungar is wholly unacceptable and highly damaging to the Church.

7 posted on 10/08/2006 6:11:19 PM PDT by kosta50 (Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

"One example, for instance, is the (in)famous Pat. Meletius IV (Metaxakis),"

The guy was a nut.

"The laity must be very much aware of personal corruption among the clergy, especially the senior clergy."

And the laity must "BEware!"


8 posted on 10/08/2006 6:57:30 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kawaii

"Frankly actions of the EP have shown true hubris and deliberate meddling on the canonical territory of other sees."

The MP, who is the one complaining about this, always has options, Kawaii. he just needs to use them and see who follows. Frankly, the ethnocentrism and pan Slavism of some attached to the MP is appalling.


9 posted on 10/08/2006 7:00:42 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
The guy [Pat. Meletius IV (Metaxakis] was a nut

Yes, but such nuts are dangerous.

10 posted on 10/08/2006 8:09:08 PM PDT by kosta50 (Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

The EP is no less Ethnocentric to ancient Greece.

The canons explicitly do not give the right to the EP to interfere in local jurisdictions.

Frankly without Third Rome, the Second would be completly gone, long since offed by the Muslims.

You seem to conveiniently ignore how much the Third Rome did to protect Orthodoxy while Rome and the Muslims both were after it.


11 posted on 10/08/2006 9:59:42 PM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

"The Ecumenical Patriarch is, of course, correct when he asserts that any serious talk of a "3rd Rome" (i.e. Moscow) is uncanonical."

Just like the Pope is right when he says the 4 ancient sees were all heretics right?

Orthodoxy does not understand a primacy like Rome's. There is no primacy that gives the right to arbitrarily interfere into the sees of orther Patriarchates.


12 posted on 10/08/2006 10:01:21 PM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Kolokotronis

And for all your claims of heresies cooperating with the Turk government and not demanding the return of Hagia Sophia was 'Sergeiism' long before the Soviets and said Patriarch. It takea lot of nerve to act unilaterally against other Patriarchs and sit warm and fuzzy with Muslims.

At least the Russian church can claim the new martyrs who refused to capitulate.


13 posted on 10/08/2006 10:39:46 PM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kawaii; kosta50

"The EP is no less Ethnocentric to ancient Greece."

Huh? The EP, and the rest of Orthodoxy for that matter and under the leadership of the EP, condemned ethno-phyletism at a Pan Orthodox council in the 1870s. This was in specific response to the rise of "national churches" on the Peter the Great Russian model in the 19th century. Ethnicity had little or nothing to do with The Church before the Great Schism or indeed after the Schism until the rise of the chauvinistic 3rd Rome idea. The Faith isn't defined by ethnicity or nationality, though nationality, until relatively recently, was clearly defined by Faith. To compare the Eastern Roman Empire with the Russian Empire is a mischaracterization of history. The ERE was a Greek speaking Empire with a Hellenistic culture, but it wasn't "Greek", certainly nothing like ancient Greece. The Russian Empire was thoroughly, chauvinistically Russian as is the Russian Church. It was less true of the Russian Church prior to Peter the Great but what Peter created was nothing like the Church which existed in the Ottoman Empire

"The canons explicitly do not give the right to the EP to interfere in local jurisdictions."

The canons do give jurisdiction to areas outside the boundaries of the ancient patriarchates. Moscow, of course, is not an ancient patriarchate and the Church in Russia was under Constantinople for centuries. At least canonically, Moscow has zero jurisdiction outside its original jurisdiction as granted by Constantinople.

"Frankly without Third Rome, the Second would be completly gone, long since offed by the Muslims."

And when, exactly, did Russia save the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Certainly not after WWI and during the 20th century when the Turks effectively did wipe out Orthodoxy in Turkey.


14 posted on 10/09/2006 5:13:34 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kawaii; kosta50
"And for all your claims of heresies cooperating with the Turk government and not demanding the return of Hagia Sophia was 'Sergeiism' long before the Soviets and said Patriarch. It takea lot of nerve to act unilaterally against other Patriarchs and sit warm and fuzzy with Muslims.

At least the Russian church can claim the new martyrs who refused to capitulate"

God heavens! Sergianism?????? The role of the EP in the Turkish Empire was that of the Ethnarch of the Rum milliyet. He was hardly the head of an office of the Ottoman government. Do you honestly think that the EP could accomplish anything at all save perhaps being killed if he started trumpeting a demand for the return of Agia Sophia? And do you honestly think that non Russian Orthodox will hang their heads in shame by a comparison of 70 years of communist oppression in Russian with 500+ years of it under the Ottomans or, in the case of Egypt and the Holy Land 1300 years of it under the Mohammedans? No one, no one who is Orthodox would for one minute disparage the martyrdom of faithful Russians under demonic communism, but only a Russian chauvinist would presume to elevate that sacrifice above that of the rest of the Orthodox world!

Kawaii, so far as I know, you're not even Russian. Be careful of drinking too much of that green koolaide some Russian clerics and their American fellow travellers are handing out. They have an agenda.

15 posted on 10/09/2006 5:27:22 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Agrarian; kosta50; kawaii
I had not caught the date. Perhaps this does explain why the EP gained the support of the other Orthodox as a counterbalance to the claims of Moscow. It would be interesting to see how the vote broke down.

Still, I do not understand the position of either Moscow or Constantinople. I thought the whole point of Orthodoxy, as opposed to Catholicism, was the denial of any single locus of authority. Say what you will about the claims of Rome (the first and only real one :) ), at least they are based on a theological basis with a grant to St. Peter by our Lord, not on who is the biggest and baddest bishop in the Church. It would seem to me that any claim by either Constantinople or Moscow for a leadership position within the Church that is vested with real authority, and not just honor, would only strengthen the prior claims of Rome to hold that position.

16 posted on 10/09/2006 5:43:20 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kawaii
Just like the Pope is right when he says the 4 ancient sees were all heretics right?

That is a theological divide, kawaii. You are mixing apples and oranges.

There is no primacy that gives the right to arbitrarily interfere into the sees of orther Patriarchates

The uncanonical acts of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the past, interfereing and, indeed, even absorbing jurisdictions of other Patriarchates (i.e. Finland), does not give Moscow the "right" to compete with or overtake the primacy in the Orthodox Church communion.

One wrong does not justify another.

17 posted on 10/09/2006 6:06:36 AM PDT by kosta50 (Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Petrosius; kosta50

"It would seem to me that any claim by either Constantinople or Moscow for a leadership position within the Church that is vested with real authority, and not just honor, would only strengthen the prior claims of Rome to hold that position."

I don't think anyone would argue that primacy in The Church belongs to Rome. The question is what does that primacy mean? Met. John argues that Roman primacy implies some degree of power to exercise that primacy, though he has been quick to add that that does not mean any immediate universal jurisdiction. It undoubtedly implies the power to call councils and carries with it a sort of requirement that the opinions of the Pope on theological and ecclesiological matters be given the greatest deference, though not slavish acceptance. That said, it needs to be remembered that in the East, the final arbiter of "Orthodoxy" is the People of God, the people of God who followed the Pope during so many heretical outbreaks in the East before the Great Schism and the same ones who rejected the False Union of Florence.

What Moscow is talking about is a sort of Orthodox medieval papism, with overtones of nationalism. Constantinople is advocating for a far more ancient model based on the councils which indeed did establish Constantinople as second in honor and as Kosta pointed out, in default of the Pope, the EP becomes the primus inter pares among Orthodox hierarchs. That too implies as certain degree of enhanced authority but no more a universal immediate (or otherwise) jurisdiction than we would attribute to Rome.


18 posted on 10/09/2006 6:07:56 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

"And when, exactly, did Russia save the Patriarchate of Constantinople? Certainly not after WWI and during the 20th century when the Turks effectively did wipe out Orthodoxy in Turkey."

Who was it coming to the East aid in the Crimean war? Oh I'm sure it was the EP.

Who was that refused to rubber stamp the Council of Florence when in Greece it was the defacto truth? Oh The stinging Orthodoxy of the EP again.

Let's be perfectly truthful. There was only one military force backing Orthodoxy from 1054 to 1919. Everytime Orthodox nations were attacked by Muslims or Catholics they were the ones who stood up.

WWI is something of a cheap shot since the Tsar was already fending off the communist revolutionaries AND Western Europe.


19 posted on 10/09/2006 6:16:55 AM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Moscow is talking about a third among equals it's deserved for practically 1000 years, when 75% of the Orthodox world is in its direct jurisdiction.

The "3rd Rome" thinking YOU are reffering to was the thinking excommunicated with the Old Beleivers.

BTW Let's be perfectly honest.

The result with Estonia had less to do with a major Orthodox backing of the EP than it did mistrust for Post Soviet patriarch.

With continued ignoring of canon and down right defiance of it in the EP. And the coninued re-communion of the Slavic churches it's unlikely this trend will continue. Folks simply will not watch an Orthodox patriarch flout canon like he's the Bishop of Rome and not speak up.


20 posted on 10/09/2006 6:20:47 AM PDT by kawaii
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-69 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson