Forumites,
I know that there has been a lot of discussion today about the forum etc. etc., but this past Sunday I had an intersting talk with someone about the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). My questions I am proposing here may offend some people so for that I apoligize. How is the MP canonical? What makes Moscow a patriarchate? I always thought that an apostle had to have visited or started a church in that city. Again sorry if I have angered any MP forumites. Too bad Reader Sege won't be here to comment, because this is in his ballpark along wih many things on the forum.

-ukrainiancatholic

no "rules" exists for the creation or recognition of patriarchates (pace those who think something "mystical" determines this). MP is a patriarchate because she says she is and the rest of Orthodoxy agrees.

Axios

Before the Council of Florence, the Metropolitan of the Russian Church was appointed by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople.

At the time of the Florentine Union, the Russian Metropolitan was actually a Greek, Isidore, who was a champion of the union.

Upon his return to his see in Moscow, he was not exactly received with love and affection, but was forced to flee Russia for Italy since the Muscovites were so violently opposed to the Florentine Union.

That left the chief see of the Russians vacant since the official Church of Constantinople remained loyal to the Florentine Union until 1453.

The Russians, reluctant about making any unilateral decisions, delayed for many years. Eventually--in 1448--a council of Russian bishops elected a Metropolitan in Moscow, and Constantinople was no longer consulted.

In 1453, when the Florentine Union was abandoned by Constantinople, communion between Constantinople and Moscow was restored, but the Russians continued to appoint their chief hierarch.

In 1589, with the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Russian Church was raised from the rank of Metropolitan to that of Patriarch.

And then, along came Peter the Great and.....

ER

[ 03-13-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Too bad the Kievans were home doing laundry during all this. Things might be quite different today. Moscow would be a minor patriarchate like Sophia or Bucharest, and Kiev would hold the 'prime' patriarchal status among the Northern Slavs.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

I heard the Kievans sent their laundry out.

Nicky's Baba

Fr Borys Gudziak, Rector of the L'viv Theological Academy, in his book "Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest" (Harvard 2001) basically says that Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople went to Moscow to raise funds because Turkish taxes and the need for bribes had emptied the EP's treasury. While he was in Moscow, he was kept under virtual house arrest until he agreed (over the objections of his staff) to elevate Metropolitan Iov to the status of patriarch, which was done on 5 February/26 January 1589. Having acceded to the tsar's demands (and those of the tsar's adviser Boris Godunov)he was, after a further interval, allowed to return to Constantinople, with, to be sure, substantial funds and other goods given by the tsar. After analysing the complexities of the matter (which this short summary cannot convey), Fr Borys concludes that Jeremiah basically was made an offer that he couldn't refuse.

I report this for the record, one might say. If it has offended anyone, I beg their foregiveness.

All the best,
Woody Jones

I am not surprised or offended by this factoid.

The Turks could be harsh taskmasters and the Patriarchs of the various Eastern Churches, under Turkish oppression, often spent their--short-- lives constantly scrambling for resources to feed the insatiable Turkish appetite for payoffs and bribes. They certainly could not be overly scrupulous about where these resources came from or how they were obtained.

These were the worst of times...

ER

And when Greek Patriarchs of Constantiople were lowered from the gibbets at the gates when the hangman's ropes were cut, it was clear where the enemy would lie.

It is not a short leap to understand how this situation would influence the way that the ecclesiastical efforts would have been conducted between Constantinople and other ecclesiastical communities. When you're under an imminent sentence of death, one might acquiesce to all sorts of demands. These situations must be understood and interpreted according to the standards of the time.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

The MP became a Patriarchate when the head of that Synod became a Patriarch.

The Archbishop of Moscow was elevated to Patriarch by the Patriarch of Jerusalem which was an attempt to imply that the See of the MP was above that of Constantinople but lower than that of Jerusalem.

If you would like the details, dates, ect I can get it, I just don't have time now.

A patriarch is nothing except a bishop who is the mouth for a synod of bishops of an important See.

In other words, Patriarchs have no authority beyond any other bishop in Orthodoxy. In addition, an ancient or important See of a large city is merely honored more than smaller ones, many of which are ancient themselves. Just like Los Angeles is honored more than Costa Mesa.

Being founded by an apostle is certainly an honor, and that is all it is.

Will we have a Patriarch of the Americas? Don't you think the OCA should have a Patriarch? If so when is the time table? If not why not?

Make haste with the facts (on the history of the MP) since at least one well-known Orthodox bishop, Kallistos Ware, might disagree with you.

Your position certainly contradicts the received tradition.

Interesting.

ER

Dear Orthodox Friends,

I speak here not as someone defending Eastern Catholic anything, but primarly as a Ukrainian whose ancestry is the Kyivan Church.

Before the Council of Florence, the Orthodox Head of the Church of Rus' was styled "Metropolitan of Kyiv ("Kiev" in Old Slavonic ).

Even when this Metropolitan moved northwards to escape the frequent marauding attacks of Mongols, Tatars and others, and finally settled in Moscow, primarily for security reasons at first, he was still titled "Metropolitan of Kiev."

This Metropolitan recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as his Patriarch, even though he himself was granted many privileges not enjoyed by other Metropolitans.

Many of the Metropolitans of Kiev/Kyiv were Greek and of other nationalities, as was Isidore, who later became Eastern Catholic at the Council of Florence, was later deposed and spent the rest of his life, following the Fall of Constantinople, trying to secure the release of many of his countrymen from the vantage point of Italy.

The tradition of St Andrew in Kyiv was and is one that had much to do with securing the place of Kyiv as a light in the East.

So was the tradition of St Clement of Rome, the "other" Apostolic founder of the Kyivan Church.

Kyiv became a Light in the East not only because of this, but because of its great apostolic and missionary activity as a beacon of Orthodoxy.

Muscovy's later usurpation of the Kyivan tradition, a usurpation it used to establish its own Patriarchy, is something that occurred in direct contravention of the canons of Orthodoxy.

But we need to put that behind us now. There can be more than one Church that can share in the heritage of St Andrew/St Volodymyr.

Moscow resists recognizing a Patriarchate for Kyiv, independent of itself, precisely because of this historic usurpation of Kyiv's position.

Happily, the Greeks have traditionally come to the defence of the Ukrainians.

The establishment of a canonical Kyivan Patriarchate in an independent Ukraine is something that will eventually be realized.

Moscow can keep its Patriarchate. We'll have our own.

Alex

How does the Patriarch of Jerusalem make the Archbishop of Moscow a Patriarch, with the intended effect that the now Patriarch of Moscow is higher than Constantinople, but lower than Jerusalem, when Jerusalem herself is lower than Constantinople?

The Patriarch of Jerusalem must have used "fuzzy math". :p

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Forget about the post by "orthodoxyordeath" its all wrong.

The post by Ephrem Reynolds is the correct version.


defreitas

ER's version is the correct one. The see remained vacant following Florence because Russia did not accept Florence, and therefore could not have a Metr. appointed by Constantinople at that time. The subsequent elevation to the level of Patriarch was largely inevitable -- the direct jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople was too large to stretch over Russia, and the Russian Church had de facto autonomy for some time. Really, as Fr. Meyendorff points out in "Byzantium and the Slavs", the reason why the direct jurisdiction was retained for as long as it was during Byzantine times was essentially political -- it was a means for the by-then very weak Byzantine Empire to project its power into Russia. With the final collapse of Byzantium and the rise of the Ottoman Empire, this obviously made very little sense any more, and so the ecclesiastical structures were adjusted to accomodate to the changed reality.

Brendan