Posted on 04/12/2009 2:06:23 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Moscow, 10 April, Interfax - Bishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Church Relations expressed his disagreement with the Constantinople Patriarchate urge to govern all church communities in the Orthodox diaspora.
"One of the major challenges for inter-Orthodox relations I see the claims of Constantinople Patriarchate to a special role in the Orthodox Church," Bishop Hilarion said at Interfax press conference.
"The Orthodox Church is going to be enforced the model of the Catholic Church, which is the most centralized church power leaded by the one bishop of the Universal Church," the Bishop said.
He reminded that "there was no such a model in the Orthodox Church" and voiced his doubt "that we have the right to review our teaching of the Church."
According to Bishop Hilarion, the leading bishops of Constantinople Patriarchate urge to review the principle of the priority in the Orthodox world. This model envisages that the Constantinople Patriarchate "shall govern all churches in the so-called diaspora." Communities not included within the borders of historical national churches shall assume the jurisdiction of Constantinople.
Bishop Hilarion said that this whole complex issues shall be discussed at the inter-Orthodox meeting, where the Constantinople model shall be imposed on the Russian Church.
The Orthodox Laity are going to put a stop to all this nonsense. Happens periodically that they have to do so.
When you dress the Hierachy like emperors and tell them to live forever, it’s only human that they will periodically become a little puffed up. It’s falls to the laity to let some of that air out.
What utter nonsense!! Constantinople (where Christianity first got official recognition) will FOREVER be a one of the three cities of Christianity along with Rome and Jerusalem. Simple, Period, Done!!
Moscow or no Moscow, nothing can be done to supplant Constantinople. Heck, people like me are hoping one day that the Byzantine Empire comes back (one of the greatest losses in history solely due to intra Christian infighting)
***Moscow or no Moscow, nothing can be done to supplant Constantinople.***
What! You don’t believe Moscow is the “third Rome” since Rome and Constantinople both have fallen?
Sarc/off
From the First Ecumencical Council of Nicea:
Canon 6
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.
Canon 7
Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.
Thus establishing the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome...
The First Ecumencial Council of Constantinople:
Canon 2
The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers.
Canon 3
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.
Thus elevating Constantinople to the rank of Patriarch (and establishing the "Pentarchy") and giving him the rank immediately after the Bishop of Rome.
The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon assigns the territory including Russia to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Fast forward to 1448. The Metropolitan Bishop of Moscow traveled to the Council of Florence (which sought to heal the schisms in the Church). This bishop, Isidore, signed off on the council. When he returned to Moscow, he proclaimed the decrees of the council and was promptly imprisoned by the Grand Duke...and then was allowed to flee to exile (to Italy). Unfortunately (for Russia), the Patriarch of Constantinople also signed off on the council as well...so the Grand Duke couldn't ask Constantinople for a new bishop (otherwise he'd have to admit that he was wrong); thus he declared the Church in Russia to be autocephalous. Now, in the meantime, Constantinople got sacked by the Muslims, thus dramatically reducing the influence of the Patriarch. Thus the Patriarch signed off on Moscow's new autocephalous status.
Conveniently, at around the same time, Constantinople decided to reverse themselves on the Council of Florence and reject it after the fact.
About 150 years later, after it was apparent that the Muslims were there to stay, the self-appointed Metropolitan Bishop of Moscow appealed to Constantinople (now a Muslim city) to elevate his own status to Patriarch. Constantinople referred this question to the other Eastern patriarchs (in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria...oh, by the way, also vassal Muslim cities by this time), who readily agreed. Thus the "status" of Moscow as a "Patriarchate."
So the Patriarchs of the East decided to go against their own teachings (that one cannot mess with an ecumenical council's canons unless by another ecumenical council) and grant patriarchal status to a usurper.
So can it be any wonder that a usurper says, "One of the major challenges for inter-Orthodox relations I see the claims of Constantinople Patriarchate to a special role in the Orthodox Church," thus attempting to stab his benefactor in the back...this time, not only stealing authority but actually attempting to undermine successions of ecumenical councils?
Sounds like he got lessons from the courts in the US (ref "Men in Black" by Levin).
ping
Completely irrelevant, actually.
The Moscow Partiarch is recognized by all of the Orthodox Patriarchs as being a legitimate Patriarch. Being a recognized autocephalous church gives them that distinction.
Case closed.
Not hardly.
The Moscow Partiarch is recognized by all of the Orthodox Patriarchs as being a legitimate Patriarch. Being a recognized autocephalous church gives them that distinction.
There's a lot of things recognized as being legitimate when they aren't.
I could list some egregious examples, but in the interest of Christian Charity, I won't.
Fact of the matter is that he isn't legitimate, since his see wasn't raised to patriarchal status by an ecumenical council; therefore, he is a usurper.
And considering the see is a see of a usurper, seeing an outrageous statement such as the one made by the current occupant of that see is not surprising. And that was the point of my earlier post.
The problem with the third Rome is that there was no Rome there before it became the third Rome. The third Rome was only a vast plain of Rus vacuity stretching out to infinity. There was no high Latin/Hellinistic tradition with which the Rus could engage their Christianity. All the Russian church could converse with was the inarticulate peasant on one hand and on the other an all-powerful Tsar who imposed his order on the infinite chaos of the peasant living in the infinite plain of Russia.
As a Greek Orthodox person I know once told me, "The Russians think they invented Christianity." But the truth is quite different. Everything good about Russia was borrowed from the Greeks.
If that is true, why is the Moscow Patriarch recognized as a Patriarch of the Orthodox Christian Church? Even Constantinople extends him that recognition (his name is read at their Liturgies).
Either you are mistaken or every Orthodox Christian Patriarch is.
As well as the Bishop of Rome, by the way.
Haven't seen the Bishop of Rome recognize this guy as anything but a brother bishop. Not as a patriarch. By the way. (Or, to be more specific, no more a "patriarch" than the Patriarch of Venice or the Patriarch of Lisbon...)
BTW, what do you think about this Hilarion's comments? Appropriate or inappropriate?
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it’s Turkish delight on a moonlit night
Every gal in Constantinople
Lives in Istanbul, not Constantinople
So if you’ve a date in Constantinople
She’ll be waiting in Istanbul
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can’t say
People just liked it better that way
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks
Istanbul (Istanbul)
Istanbul (Istanbul)
Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can’t say
People just liked it better that way
Istanbul was Constantinople
Now it’s Istanbul, not Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks
So take me back to Constantinople
No, you can’t go back to Constantinople
Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Why did Constantinople get the works
That’s nobody’s business but the Turks
Istanbul
You wrote:
“Everything good about Russia was borrowed from the Greeks.”
Really want to tick off a Russian? Say this instead: “Everything good about Russia was borrowed from the Greeks and the Catholics.”
From the Catholics, the Russians got at least one of the books of the Bible which they apparently were previously lacking (Billington’s The Icon and the Axe discusses which one).
As for the MP, that's a closed case, as FL says. The EC was at the funeral of the late Patriarch Alexy II, and appropriately placed accoridng to his rank of honor, participating in the service. You are making a strawman.
(I am posting this prior to seeing anything after #11)
Let me make one thing really clear. I don’t have anything against +Alexius or +Krill. While I don’t claim to be at all well read on them (I’m not), what I have read has been very nice. Hilarion is another matter.
A similar thing happened in the west during the time of Henry VIII. Of course, in addition to becoming belligerent and nationalistic, they also have become heretical as an institution (not including a large number of their members, though). The same thing was also attempted by the government of Red China. I fear the same thing is going to happen very soon with the bishops of Austria and very possibly elsewhere in Europe.
And one other point: I don’t see anything wrong about an “autocephalous” local Church (one with a minor patriarch who appoints her own bishops). I have a problem with a local church deciding *for itself* whether or not to do that, like what happened throughout the area under the Patriarch of Constantinople (see Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Romania, Serbia and Albania)...that is, unless their patriarch was simply incommunicado for a number of years and was somehow *unable* to appoint bishops (vice how it happened in Russia...that’s why the history is important IMHO).
Here’s the reason why: the Church in a country should be independent of its State authorities. If you have a situation where the local church deigns on its own to become “independent” of its patriarch, it risks becoming subject to the whim of the State authorities (as in the UK or in China...and very possibly like in Russia), or it can become heretical, being a follower of the devolution of the peoples’ morality (especially like in the UK or in Austria).
Even though I know you don’t agree with the conclusion of the document (and I can confidently say so without even referring you to it), there is a lot of wisdom in the encyclical “Unam Sanctum” — the base message saying that there is and should be a separation between the temporal and spiritual authorities, and the temporal authority needs to be subject to the spiritual authority and NOT vice versa.
Now on to read my hate mail...
Autocephalous patriarchates have been established along nationalistic/liguistic lines since the first century: Rome (Latin), Constantinople (Greek), Alexandria (Copt) and Antioch (Syriac). Over the next 15 centuries, autocephalous churches would continue to be established along cultural/linguistic boundaries. These churches did not always get along. The English Church was taken over by the Latin/Frankish Church in 1066, yet achieved indepenance in 1582.
A local church can decide any number of things "for itself" and some of them can result in their no longer being in Communion with the Orthodox Christian Church.
The Russian Orthodox Church, Serbian Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, are all in Communion with Constantinople.
Ergo, Constantinople has validated these "local churches" becoming Patriarchates. If that is not true, why are they still all in Communion?
I have. The Pope clearly treats the Patriarch of Moscow as the primary Church leader in Russia.
Hilarion is correct that many of the Orthodox Christians that Constantinople claims to be "in Diaspora" are not.
And he treats the Minor Patriarch of Lisbon as the primary Church leader in Portugal. And he treats Mar Emmanuel as the primary (Chaldean) Church leader in Iraq. In other words, as brother bishops.
I haven't seen him treat any of them with the deference he has given Bartholomew. Not even close. That's not to say that he looks down on them -- he doesn't. That's not to say that he doesn't acknowledge him as being the shepherd for the Orthodox Church in Russia. Not at all. But again, not with anywhere near the same deference given to Bartholomew (or, as I have been able to see, the deference given to the Patriarchs of the other ancient patriarchates...but the documentation is not nearly as complete with them)
Oh, and as to your other comment, I think the historical context given in #5 becomes relevant. Would the Ecumenical Patriarch have accepted it had he not essentially been under siege by Mohammedans at the time, his city having only been recently conquered? And would the others have declared themselves independent (autocephalous) in the 19th Century (with Constantinople still being under siege) had Russia not first done so hundreds of years earlier?
Please keep in mind that my rants on this thread should be read in the context of the outrageousness of the comments made by Hilarion, which you apparently agree with.
*sigh* I guess that we should follow Ecumenical Councils when convenient...but they should be *living* *breathing* documents (sort of like the US Constitution).
Maybe, maybe not. Supposition doesn't help much in determining his motives.
And would the others have declared themselves independent (autocephalous) in the 19th Century (with Constantinople still being under siege) had Russia not first done so hundreds of years earlier?
Maybe, maybe not. Supposition doesn't help much in determining their motivations. But the ultimate test is whether or not the rest of the Church agrees with the change.
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.