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.)
That should be shouldnt not should.
None of this is particularly pretty. My antipathy to the actions of the EP in the 20th c are no secret on FR. There have unquestionably been those in the Russian world who have historically been triumphalistic and overweening. Anyone who has been a part of the "Russian diaspora" is furthermore going to have a fair amount of "MP" baggage from the Soviet era, furthermore. This is as true, frankly, in the OCA as it is in the ROCOR.
It is a bit amusing, however, given the pretentions of the EP, which probably has more bishops than faithful, and yet which styles itself the "worldwide head of Orthodoxy" as though the Byzantine empire still existed, for its representatives to use the word "hubris" to describe Russian attitudes. For if hubris means anything, it is thinking that one is something when one is not. Russians might be arrogant, overbearing, phyletistic, or all three (I could give you examples!) -- but they are not being hubristic when thinking themselves to be the 2000 lb gorilla of post-Byzantine Orthodoxy.
The EP has made it abundantly clear in the 20th c, regardless of who has been in the throne, that he wants to be the "Pope of the East" -- if the rest of the Orthodox world would only go along with it. When the EP reps quoted in the article are going on about not wanting a "vaticanized" Orthodoxy, they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. That is exactly the model that the EP has been pursuing. Fortunately, those leading the charge against Black Bart's pretentions have in some cases been some of "his people" in the GOA, which has been invaluable in curbing those ambitions.
It is disingenuous for those on the Catholic side to say that they don't care how this turns out, as long as there is Orthodox unity. Rome has made it abundantly clear that she wants the "Pope of the East" model to reign in Orthodoxy, since Rome's ambitions would be far easier to accomplish if she only has to negotiate with one Patriarch who can tell the others what to do. If the "you have to be in communion with Constantinople to be Orthodox" mentality could penetrate into the Orthodox phronema, Rome would be halfway to where she wants to go. If there is something that Rome does *not* want, it is a strongly unified Orthodoxy that does not believe that communion with *any* one bishop is a necessary touchstone of Christian catholicity. It is far more in Rome's interests for Orthodox to feud amongst itself than for that to happen, and it has promoted those feuds with quiet vigor in the 20th c.
Rome has done much to prop up the tottering EP for precisely that reason. Ironically, the EP's eagerness to receive this support has resulted in far more hostility toward it in the broader Orthodox world than it ever experienced in the 19th c or earlier. I've been in OCA, ROCOR, and Serbian parishes, and amongst those who are informed about these things, the reflexive hostility toward the EP is truly remarkable -- in some cases, really, disproportionate to what is probably deserved, but this is simply a measure of the anger that the EP frequently generates amongst those not under its direct jurisdiction. It is completely unnecessary -- I think that the instinct, minus those attitudes and actions, amongst most Orthodox Christians would be one of sympathy toward Constantinople and one of a desire to maintain the status-quo of her as the "first-among-equals." Instead, you see the kind of hostile attitudes toward the EP that crop up regularly here on FR.
Some of the hostility toward the EP of Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, and Albanians has deeper roots, going back to its role under the Ottomans. Most discontent amongst American Orthodox of any jurisdiction, however, has 20th c roots, whether because of the calendar, because of the EP's cozy relationship with Rome, or both.
While the situation in England could be brushed off as irrelevant, it really isn't. A scab is being picked that could really start to bleed. The canonical situation in Western Europe is no more clear than is the canonical situation in America, and yet you would *never* find a GOA bishop taking in Orthodox clergy or parishes from *any* Orthodox jurisdiction in the US -- OCA, Antiochian, Serbian, MP, ROCOR... -- without a formal canonical release. Only a couple of rogue ROCOR bishops ever engaged in such activity, and only during a couple of decades of the 20th c. Their activity is to be roundly condemned, and I know for a fact that at least one of those bishops called his OCA counterpart on his deathbed and begged for his forgiveness for having received clergy without a canonical release.
For the most part, even during the days of greatest hostility, even the OCA and ROCOR were usually (but not always) polite enough to make sure that canonical releases were requested and obtained for any clergy or parishes wanting to transfer.
I know for a fact that Metropolitan Phillip of the Antiochians was very rigid about this -- even when receiving a priest from the ROCOR, with whom they were not in communion. I daresay the same has been true of the Greeks. This does not mean that either the general "Russian side" or the general "Greek side" in the question of North American canonical arguments was yielding their position -- it was simple good manners. If anything, the Greeks here in America have had among the best canonical manners of anybody.
And if it can be done here in America, it can surely be done in Western Europe, and yet it wasn't. But here is why it is different: first, the group involved in leaving the MP for the EP was a pretty kooky one. It was a very small and very wealthy bunch of Anglicized Russians and English upper-class converts. They liked their own theologically liberal, intellectualized, little upper-class English Orthodox world, and did absolutely nothing to deal with the influx of Slavic immigrants desperately needing churches, priests, and ministry. Metropolitan Anthony Bloom -- need I say more?
What happened was that when the MP became free to start dealing with the situation of Russian emigres in Western Europe and made it clear that there was a new sheriff in town, this group realized that they were going to be overwhelmed by ignorant unwashed masses who didn't speak with Oxbridge accents, and they didn't like it. It isn't a whole lot more complicated than that. This group of English Orthodox has been well-known within the "Russian diaspora" for many decades, and are roughly analogous to the "Paris school" that produced people like Schmemann and Meyendorff. They were renowned not only for failing to minister to immigrants, but also for chasing off "the wrong kind" of convert.
In one sense, it is "good riddance," but there is a bigger issue. In Western Europe, the MP and the ROCOR have for some decades had excellent relationships. There is no equivalent to the "OCA" in Western Europe, so the union between MP and ROCOR is going to be sudden, full, and dramatic. There will be a lot of pull on those Russian parishes under the EP, considering Western Europe as a whole, to join this unified Russian church in Europe. This is a major threat to the EP's claims over Orthodoxy in Western Europe, and thus they did something in England that they would *never* have done in North America or Australia. It was a pre-emptive power strike, pure and simple.
Yes, we converts most certainly can be like that. And when our worse xenoi instincts are fed by, rather than tempered by cradle Orthodox, it is a very bad combo. It happens on both the liberal and conservative ends of the Orthodox spectrum.
"It happens on both the liberal and conservative ends of the Orthodox spectrum."
NOOOOOOOOOOO, really? :)
"It is a bit amusing, however, given the pretentions of the EP, which probably has more bishops than faithful, and yet which styles itself the "worldwide head of Orthodoxy" as though the Byzantine empire still existed, for its representatives to use the word "hubris" to describe Russian attitudes. For if hubris means anything, it is thinking that one is something when one is not. Russians might be arrogant, overbearing, phyletistic, or all three (I could give you examples!) -- but they are not being hubristic when thinking themselves to be the 2000 lb gorilla of post-Byzantine Orthodoxy. "
LMAO.
Very well said, and free from bias.
Perhaps well said, but hardly free from bias. But by acknowledging my prejudices, I try to maintain some semblance of objectivity.
There is too much intemperance in the Orthodox world-- "zeal not according to knowledge", as it were.
I think it was less biased than I tend to be. And so it seemed very free from bias.
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.