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.)
"We've been plagued with meddlesome bishops since the beginning and we have muddled through somehow. Frankly, the reason I'm not worried in any great measure about any of this is because I know in the end the People of God will prevail, the protestations of the EP, the MP or any of their crowned sycophants to the contrary notwithstanding.
"
And it's been a rejection of the sort of top down primacy practiced in Rome that has enabled it.
"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."
Which is just where they both belong, under Moscow, in the event that no truly American Church emerges (which I trust will NOT happen, at least not soon). In the case of a schism, they certainly can stick with Moscow, though they didn't during the last mini schism.
"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."
That's exactly what will happen. And I have to wonder whether Rome truly appreciates that fact.
"I guess I have to disagree with you here, Kawaii. You aren't suggesting that this foolishness in the UK rises to the level of the filioque are you? If so, I would expect to the MP to hurl anathemas within the next 20 minutes or so. Lets check Interfax at about 10:30 and see if there's anything more than crickets chirping."
It doesn't rise to the same level (if one can truly evaluate degrees of flouting canon) but it demonstrates a pattern of behavior of the EP feeling he doesn't need to follow canons. A pattern which cannot persist indefinitly.
Moscow ahs jurisdiction in MP churches in the UK. Taking a bishop or priest from those churches and assigning them to EP churches is deliberatly violating canon law, and interfering in another see.
I would be just as apalled to see the MP take a schismatic EP bishop from an EP church (say GOA in America) and assign him to an MP church in America.
But wait there is no REAL jurisdiction in America right?
"That's exactly what will happen. And I have to wonder whether Rome truly appreciates that fact."
I don't wonder; I'm quite sure they do not appriciate that fact. Rome has 1000+ years of beleiving that high placed bishops are the law of the land.
I was not trying to reopen the debate about the position of Rome (that debate we can leave to another day). Rather, it seems ironic to me that while the Orthodox are united in denying Rome as the locus of unity of the Church that Constantinople and Moscow are arguing between themselves which one of them should exercise that role.
The OCA is trying hard to be an American church which is why I don't expect them to join up with ROCOR (which has always been trying to be the Russian church outside Russian borders).
Problem being there's too many contenders. I'm not amazingly up to date on the GOA but it seems to me to be split between being the Greek church in America and being the American church, same if not to a greater extent with the Antiochians.
I think you're misevaluating their reasons for not staning with Moscow before. It's a pretty different world now...
Constantinople was a non-entity and then it just came into being by imperial magic and received the same privileges as the Old Rome and only second in honor to it. It's all MAN-MADE garbage, Kolo. There is nothing in the teaching of our Lord that says anything about Constantinople or Rome being a holy city, let alone firts in anything.
Both Rome and Constantinople claimed primacy based on imperial power, state institutions, Senate, etc. Well, guess what: Constantinople is no more. It's an illusion; it's an office. The EP has to subjugate the Church of Greece and "barbarian lands" to have some clout. This is all politics, politics, and politics. I have no more reverence for one See than for another. They are man-made creations.
As for Moscow, it is where Rome and Constantinople were at one time. You mentioned Finland. If the EP had any scruples, he would give it back to Russian jurisdiciton. It is an abomination that he allows the Finns to celebrate Eastern according to the un-Orthodox calendar). But all these things are power-grabs and our hierarchy is supposedly monastic!
just how does a family fight among the Orthodox advance the Vatican's position and effort to combat Mohammedanism and secularism?
Oh, I see, holding hands and hugging among the hierarchs will stop Mohammedanism and secularism. Please, don't tell me you buy into this nonsense. No one is actively resisting Islam. And what is the Church doing to combat secularism?
Do you think the Orthodox would object if, for instance, certain rites in the Catholic community started to argue with the Vatican, splitting the Latin Church? It would make the other side weaker, to the other's advantage, and more likely to agree to a compromise, as was the case in Florence.
IMNSHO.
If there is someone to be exercising anything like the Roman understanding of Primacy it's Rome not constantinople but if I felt anything like Roman primacy was true I'd be a Catholic not an Orthodox.
"Constantinople was a non-entity and then it just came into being by imperial magic and received the same privileges as the Old Rome and only second in honor to it."
Which is exactly why I feel if Constaninople feels it's second among equals should persists then it leaves the door open for Moscow's third amoung equals...
I can assure you that there is no joy in the Vatican over this dispute. Whatever you might think of Rome's agenda for ecumenism, this spat does not advance it.
The Orthodox are not de nying the locus of unity of the Church. There is no communion between the Orthodox and Rome. In its absence, one of them has to be the focus of unity.
The EP is the focus of unity of the Orthodox, but the MP is a significant member of that Church while it is treated the way the Pope at one time treated Constantinople (+Leo's famous words to the Emperor after the Council of Chalcedon regarding the Bishop of Constantinople: "he should behave, I made him the Bishop of Constantinople.")
That short of arrogance is inexcusable among people who are suppsoed to be icons of Christ.
Ecatly, yet the attitude is "the MP should behave..." to echo +Leo's words about the EP.
" Constantinople was a non-entity and then it just came into being by imperial magic and received the same privileges as the Old Rome and only second in honor to it. It's all MAN-MADE garbage, Kolo. There is nothing in the teaching of our Lord that says anything about Constantinople or Rome being a holy city, let alone firts in anything.
Both Rome and Constantinople claimed primacy based on imperial power, state institutions, Senate, etc. Well, guess what: Constantinople is no more. It's an illusion; it's an office. The EP has to subjugate the Church of Greece and "barbarian lands" to have some clout. This is all politics, politics, and politics. I have no more reverence for one See than for another. They are man-made creations."
Kosta, you know I agree with everything you've written here. You could be me arguing these very points to certain characters wearing crowns just a few years back.
"Oh, I see, holding hands and hugging among the hierarchs will stop Mohammedanism and secularism. Please, don't tell me you buy into this nonsense. No one is actively resisting Islam. And what is the Church doing to combat secularism?"
Kosta, I'm not saying this is true (I don't know), but it is what Rome and Moscow are saying. It would be nice if it were true, though.
"Do you think the Orthodox would object if, for instance, certain rites in the Catholic community started to argue with the Vatican, splitting the Latin Church? It would make the other side weaker, to the other's advantage, and more likely to agree to a compromise, as was the case in Florence."
If we were in a Florence type situation, I'd agree, but we're not, at least not yet.
I have no illusions that the only agenda Rome has for ecumenism is to bring under its fold all Churches, one at a time or all of them at once. And that is something Rome does enjoy even as a possibility.
"Rather, it seems ironic to me that while the Orthodox are united in denying Rome as the locus of unity of the Church that Constantinople and Moscow are arguing between themselves which one of them should exercise that role."
That's not the argument anywhere that I can see.Within Orthodoxy it has to do with primacy as a practical matter. It does with Rome too, but only as a precursor to further ecclesiological and theological matters.
If we're going by sheer practicality I think Constinople's primacy is long gone.
Even granting what you say, this dispute does not advance Rome's position. It just complicates the whole business.
"If we're going by sheer practicality I think Constinople's primacy is long gone."
In one sense you are of course correct. What I meant, however, was who as a practical matter actually exercises primacy and the other patriarchates and autocephallous churches actually listen...and that's Constantinople, not Moscow.
Which is exactly why I think its critical Constantinople actually hear out canonical claims of other Patriarchs rather than just ignore them and presume they'll go away.
I'm for giving Constantinople a primacy of honor, but I don't see why Moscow should be right behind them in processions (just as Constantinople went from being behind Jerusalem and Antioch to being right behind Rome in processions), and be able to call Pan-Orthodox councils.
75+ percent of Orthodoxy and growing ought to have the right to ask the remaining 25% to get together and have a referendum.
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.