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.)
"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."
Yeah I sort of had that impression too. It seems some folks back their Patriarch above Orthodoxy.
"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."
I'm hardly arguing as much. Even at the height of the "Third Rome" mentality the Russian church argued it was THIRD among equals (a definition which is fast becoming an Animal Farm like focus on rank above equal).
The Moscow church is looking for Orthodoxy to back up it's canonical stances in situations with heterodox practices, and out of a love for power the EP is ignoring that.
In the UK the EP should have asked for the move of said bishop. They didn't and wouldn't respond when asked to do so. That is deliberate flouting of canon.
Say what you will.
When the Pope wants to visit Russia the Orthodox Patriarch oppose it and he stays out.
When the Pope wants to visit Turkey the Muslims and Government oppose it and he has to wait until their leisure permits it.
Frankly I do not think third rome is 'just for Russians any more'. When one see is responsible for more than 75% of Orthodoxy and growing it derserves the backing of the Other sees on issues of canon.
"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? "
This is exactly what ROCOR has been arguing with the MP about.
Frankly numerous Russian martyrs did just that; died out of dedication to Orthodoxy.
Agia Sophia is a Museum owned by an aledgedly secular government when it was built by the Orthodox and remains a major Orthodox symbol. Why not demand it back? Because the Muslims might not like it.
Frankly as many bishops died for orthodoxy in those 70 years as did in 500 years of the EP. Why? Because several fled the Eastern empire lands to the Third Rome.
Don't try to sit here and tell me what the Turks did was anything NEARLY as exhaustive as what Lenin and Stalin carried out. At least Agia Sophia is still standing. Stalin was hours from demo-ing St Basils and frankly did as much to Monasaries and churches as old as the schism whilst executing bishops and priests in numbers that vaslty exceed the Jews experience under Hitler.
What was it that motivated these folks to not capitulate to the Soviets?
The Third Rome propaganda as you call it.
Your memory seems to be better than the memory of the bishops at the Council of Chalcedon, Petrosius. It is clear from it that the privileges were very much determined who was the biggest and baddest of them all, inlcuidng the Old Rome. No mention was made of biblical primacy.
Among Orthodox, a very tiny minority (not surprisingly EP's right hand, Metropolitan of Pergamon, +Ionnais, who was in Belgrade) agree with the Latin side on this issue.
But here we are mixing two different issues: one concerns EP's transgressions, and the other one is Moscow's logical but uncanonical expectation of being more than just another Patriarchate.
Realistically speaking, Moscow cannot be snubbed. On the other hand, there is a sense of fantasy involved when we speak of Patriarchs of non-existent cities and Churches. There is a certain and undeniable degree of ingratitude rendered to Moscow which holds over 80% of the world's Orthodox.
To imply that the EP has no reason to show gratitude to the Russian Church, to treat it as one of the non-ancient Patriarchates, peripheral additions to the Orthodox community, is asking for a rift, because the reality is that the MP holds a vast majority of the world's Orthodox and that the Slavic Church will side with the MP, raising that number to more than 85%.
If this idiotic finger-pointing doesn't stop, and if the EP doesn't stop treating Moscow as some step-child, the Orthodox world will experience a catastrophic disaster over ethnocentric and egotistical issues, both of which are inexcusable for the monastic leaderhsip of the Orthodox Church community.
The Orthodox hierarchy should be more concerned with healing the rifts within its own ranks than with healing the east-west divide which is theologically hopeless for all practical proposes. This is one more reminder that ecumenism brought nothing good to Orthodoxy.
The Vatican, on the other hand deals with both. This approach has divided Orthodoxy more than proselytism or "Uniatism" could ever achieve. The Vatican can now simply sit back and enjoy the fight.
"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."
Firstly the way the EP refuses to follow canon apparently out of spite in the UK ordeal signals an agenda.
Secondly while I certainly wasn't born in Russi I don't recall mentioning what my ancestry is.
Wow to a large extent I should have just asked you to say what I meant better.
Any demand of being officially made "Third Rome" is uncanonical.
That being said, there is no doubt that the world's largest Orthodox Church is treated as a peripheral patriarchate by the EP.
Orthodoxy seems to be doing much better when it stays clear from ecumenism.
"Folks simply will not watch an Orthodox patriarch flout canon like he's the Bishop of Rome and not speak up."
Perhaps; that's the job of the People of God. The GOA did exactly that here within the past 10 years. And it looks like the assembled representatives gave a similar slap to Moscow at Belgrade.
Don't ever trust hierarchs, Kawaii, no matter what language they speak. The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.
"Firstly the way the EP refuses to follow canon apparently out of spite in the UK ordeal signals an agenda."
What in heaven's name gives you the idea that the MP has any canonical jurisdiction in the UK?
"Secondly while I certainly wasn't born in Russi I don't recall mentioning what my ancestry is."
You're right. Are you ethnically Russian?
I can't see what the largest see should be batting 5th in the lineup.
Frankly I do not see why Russia (and when Filofey said Third Rome he wasn't reffering to the city of Moscow but the entire bounds of the Russian church) should not be at least 3rd among equals. Why should Sees which don't even still hold a calcuable number of Christians in their city of note be first in processions. Why should they be allowed to call councils when only a tiny fraction of the Orthodox church is under their Patriarch, but those with the vast majority of the Orthodox under them be unable to, and have to ignore their meddling in their jurisdictions?
What in heaven's name gives you the idea that the MP has any canonical jurisdiction in the UK?
Even if we assume that England is still a missionary church (a stretch), there are canons which state that another patriarch must submit a letter in writing requesting the transfer of a priest from one see to his own.
Calling England and America barbarian lands is ignoring about 1000 years of Orthodoxy.
There are those who'd suggest that Orthodoxy is near independant of meddlesome bishops to begin with, though that's not what I'm worried about.
If there is a canon which states a Patriarch must ask another Patriarch before moving a priest or bishop from his jurisdiction to another that should be followed, and I don't see much of a difference between making modifications to the creed without a council and moving a bishop between Patriarchates outside of canon without holding some council to identify why.
"To imply that the EP has no reason to show gratitude to the Russian Church, to treat it as one of the non-ancient Patriarchates, peripheral additions to the Orthodox community, is asking for a rift, because the reality is that the MP holds a vast majority of the world's Orthodox and that the Slavic Church will side with the MP, raising that number to more than 85%."
But the fact of the matter is that Slavic Orthodoxy has not sided with Moscow, Kosta. Given the history of the 20th century I think its unlikely it will anytime soon. I suppose its possible that Moscow will take a hike. It did over the Estonia matter but not for long. As for being peripheral, well, the truth of the matter is that Moscow, unlike Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem is peripheral, though I agree that continually poking at the Russian bear is pretty foolish.
"This is one more reminder that ecumenism brought nothing good to Orthodoxy."
What has "ecumenism", however defined, got to do with the minions of Moscow throwing a fit at Belgrade? So far as I can see, the offending document was an Orthodox working paper, not some concoction of Rome.
"The Vatican, on the other hand deals with both. This approach has divided Orthodoxy more than proselytism or "Uniatism" could ever achieve. The Vatican can now simply sit back and enjoy the fight."
Now just how does a family fight among the Orthodox advance the Vatican's position and effort to combat Mohammedanism and secularism?
"There is a certain and undeniable degree of ingratitude rendered to Moscow which holds over 80% of the world's Orthodox."
I am confused by this idea that Orthodoxy owes a debt of gratitude to Moscow. What exactly do you mean?
Noting btw Kolo that you're well aware the church I go to doesn't turst the MP any further than the EP.
I get into arguments regurally with folks suggesting heterodox ideas dispensed with during the Old Beleiver schism.
Die hard schismatics who make protestant-like accusations that their 2-10 church are the whole of Christianity.
Folks who also hold to an ACTUALLY heretical view of the Third Rome mentality.
Constaninople was ones listed well behind Antioch and Jerusalem, etc.
Why was it moved to number 2?
The Russian church has all the same reasons and more for being number 3.
No jurisdiction was ever an issue between +Peter and other Apostles. His primacy was that of the "older brother." +Peter did not lord over his apostolic brothers. He was given deference for reasons other than jurisdiction.
Jurisdictional authority is an innovation of the Church and is grew larger as the Church establishment became more complex. I submit that all the authority given to the primus inter pares is spelled out simply and unambiguously: nothing can happen without him and he cannot do anything without the consent of other. Both bishops of Rome and Constantinople have violated this on numerous occasions and the Bishop of Rome has actually arrogated himself a divine right to do so.
It is clear that Rome became the center, and not Antioch (although both were +Peter's Sees) because of the importance of Rome. Likewise, without compromising EP's honor and ranking, the EP should recognize the immense Patriarchy of Moscow and what it means to the Orthodox world.
Finally, both Patriarchs have jumped into the East-West dialogue which is turning out to be more than dialogue. I believe it has cause the brothers to turn on each other. Ecumenism was denounced by +Justin of Cheliye. Ecumenism is a poison. It's effects are visible evident already. The Orthodox have been foolishly drawn into this once again.
"But the fact of the matter is that Slavic Orthodoxy has not sided with Moscow, Kosta. Given the history of the 20th century I think its unlikely it will anytime soon. I suppose its possible that Moscow will take a hike. It did over the Estonia matter but not for long. As for being peripheral, well, the truth of the matter is that Moscow, unlike Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem is peripheral, though I agree that continually poking at the Russian bear is pretty foolish. "
That's a stretch. The OCA and ROCOR are both essentially recognizing the MP as the official Russian church. Short of calling the Ruthenians the 'real slavs' I don't know how you come up with what you do. Further I wouldn't be surprised to see the Carpatho-Russyn church join up with the MP either now that ROCOR has.
The slavs ALL bought into the Third Rome which you dismiss as propaganda. They're all very likely to return to the fold when and if it becomes clear that the Russian church is no longer a soviet trick.
"Finally, both Patriarchs have jumped into the East-West dialogue which is turning out to be more than dialogue. I believe it has cause the brothers to turn on each other. Ecumenism was denounced by +Justin of Cheliye. Ecumenism is a poison. It's effects are visible evident already. The Orthodox have been foolishly drawn into this once again."
And the MP and EP may both find out what a fight is like between the faithful and the Bishops, as was the case during the Iconoclast controversy, should they enter into a union with Rome which flouts Orthodox beleifs.
"I am confused by this idea that Orthodoxy owes a debt of gratitude to Moscow. What exactly do you mean?"
Who ignored the Council of Florence while a compromised EP was still preaching it? Moscow.
Who came to the aid of Orthodox Christians when Muslims and Catholics alike were out to remove them from the Holy Land in things like the Crimean war? Moscow.
Who freed the Ukrainian and Belarussian churches from Catholics who'd confiscated every church and murdered everyone who disagreed? Kossaks with major support from Moscow.
It's been 800+ years since a strong Constaninople was preventing Heretics and Schismatics from murdering Orthodox Christians and stealing their church or raising them to the ground.
Who exactly do you feel has been stepping up in the mean time?
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.