Posted on 09/30/2006 2:42:39 PM PDT by NYer
Truth be told, the Roman Empire wasn't a Christian nation when the precedence of sees based on the importance of the city they occupied was begun, but Rome ranked first as the capital, even when Diocletian was adorning the Church with martyrs and defiling his soul with violence, even as Alexandria ranked second as the second most important city in the Empire, and so forth.
Like it or not Washington is the capital of the Empire now. And I use that word without prejudice--post 9/11 I decided American imperialism is a good thing.
The center of today's Orthodox world is in Moscow, like it or not. That's where the EP should be.
Well, leveling is always in order. :)
But without opening a can of theological worms, let me just say that the 4th Ecumenical Council seems to ascribe a little more weight to Leo, Archibishop of Rome, than the fact that he held a once-important historic see.
And for some counter-leveling in all charity, I think that is easier for folks under the omophorion (I hope I used that right) of the EP of Constantinople to want to "move" the patriarchate to Moscow or wherever. Because, as far as I know, Constantinople was the only patriarchate of the five that was created for largely political reasons and not because its importance as an Apostolic See was firmly established by the 4th century. The story of St. Andrew aside (and who am I to deny it?), I'm not aware that Byzantium/Constantinople figures very much at all in Eusebius's History.
I am certainly not opposed to Constantinople's rank but I think that the historicity/apostolicity of the see could be a minor issue to you because, well, it was really never Constantinople's strong suit. That's not a criticism, mind you, just a sociological observation.
And just for the record, so you know from where I come from in all this, I think that Hagia Sophia's current condition is a crying shame, and it should be returned in all its former glory to the EP posthaste.
Let me say that I agree with everything you wrote. No problems or issues there. Yes, of course, +Leo was given the full weight. Yet some things were taken away from him too. No one doubted or questioned that +Leo was first among other patriarchs. The Orthodox still recognize that. We are discussing not if but what that entails.
Our non-communion is not based on ranking but on theological differences; we simply do not profess the same faith (as the Orthodox see it).
I am Serbian Orthodox and we really don't consider ourselves to be "under" EP's omophorion; I would venture to say the Church of Greece is held captive by him, but his presence is a symbolic representation of our faith and in that sense he does reflect all of us to the world.
Of course... I completely agree, and like I said, I'm not here to tackle that issue. :)
However, I am interested in your thoughts on how easily a patriarchate can be moved...it's something I've been asking myself and haven't answered to my own satisfaction. Almost no reason why New York should not be a quasi-patriarchate at this point (although these things work differently in the Latin church). But then again, why is Baltimore the Primatial see of America? And why Canterbury and not London?
History is inextricably woven in to the rights and status of a patriarchate...I suppose there's no *theological* reason why one can't be moved, but maybe geographical tradition is at least as worth defending (where it can be anyway) as other aspects of tradition.
I would say unless the Turks physically destroy the Patriarchate and expel the Ecumenical Patriarch, it won't and can't happen. Under such circumstances, a pan-Orthodox Synod (council of all Orthodox Patriarchs would have to meet and decide, and in this case the decision would be a one of sympathy — for all the Orthodox would for that moment be Greeks.
I would say, the Patriarchate would be built on the Greco-Turkish border, as close to Istanbul as possible and they would probably build the biggest Orthodox church in the world, and would remain there until the Turks, by the grace of God become Orthodox one day.
If for some reason the issue of moving the Ecumenical Patriarchate were to come up for a different reason (although I can't imagine what), the most logical place would be Moscow. Russian Patriarch represents over 80% of the world Orthodox, and the Patriarchate would be in the heart of the Orthodox world, not on its fingers as it is today.
But in either case, the decision would have to be made by a pan-Orthodox Synod and then approved by the laity and lower clergy, always keeping in mind that love does not impose.
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.