www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Communion of Churches

Dear djs,

Actually, Fr. Viktor Pospishil makes the same arguments here as you in his commentary on the Decree on the Eastern Churches.

He also alludes to how the governments of states in which Orthodox Churches exist often exercise direct control over internal church affairs.

Alex

The interference of the EP in the affairs of the Jerusalem Patriarchate a few years ago, show the supremacist attitudes that sometimes polute Orthodoxy and the papal role that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is increasingly taking.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Bless me a sinner, Father Mark,

I'm in a dilemma here!

The "uniate" in me wants to join with you in saying that, "Rah, rah, the Orthodox EP is as papal as we are!"

Then, I think to myself, what am I protesting against?

Alex

Dear Alex,

Not a protest, but a glimmer of hope.
Can we all agree that the first among equals under difficult circumstances can act and must act, by the grace of God, in "supreme" ways for the health and safety of the church?

If we can agree on this fundamental point, then the rest of the primacy/supremacy issue is just working out details.

"The EP has traditionally appointed the [Greek Orthodox] Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria."

Although this practice seems to have started, on and off, following the splits with the non-Chalcedonians (and was mostly done for political/security reasons) it really only became institutionalized this way during the Ottoman Empire because the Ottomans wanted to control everything relating to the "Rum Orthodox Millet" centrally through the EP. Not Orthodox ecclesiology, but Turkish political administration, here. One could say the same thing of the pressures exerted by the Constantinopolitan Basileus for the EP to do the same during the Imperial period. The conciliar texts do not recognize this authority, and note well that whenever the political structures have not been unitary for this area, that kind of meddling, if you want to call it that, has not happened.

"And has also been involved in the outright take over of Patriarchal churches - e.g., Serbia, Bulgaria."

The Balkans were originally part of the EP's patriarchal territory. The Serb Church became a Patriarchate after much political arm-twisting during a period when the rising Serb nation actually threatened to take over Constantinople. It reverted back to the EP during the Ottoman administration, and then reverted back to its own autonomous/autocehpalous church when Serbia broke away from the Ottoman Empire.

Regarding Bulgaria, the Bulgars -- almost from from the beginning -- wanted to head their own church. This was a matter of controversy between Rome and Constantinople at the time (remember the so-called "Photian Schism"? Much of it had to do with who had jurisdiction over Bulgaria, a place which is a stone's throw from Constantinople). It reverted to the EP's jurisdiction during the Ottoman period (for Turkish administrative political reasons as noted above), and then when the Bulgarians left the Ottoman Empire, the autocephaly resumed.

During the entire Ottoman period the relations between the EP and the other Orthodox within the Ottoman political jurisdiction can't be considered normative in any way because the Ottomans purposely concentrated Patriarchal power so that they could control the Orthodox more effectively.

"Such acts go far beyond any exercise of "Papal supremacy", and were undertaken with such regularity that they are arguably traditional, not anomalous."

I disagree with this. As I see it, by the early middle ages the EP had obtained a quite large jurisdiction (because it was the Church that missionized the Balkans and Rus) which got whittled down over time (witness the creation of the Serb Patriarchate), but was revived during the Ottoman period (and more or less collapsed thereafter).

Further, there is no claim, even by an expansive reading by the Phanar of its authority, that the EP has direct jurisdiction in every diocese of the Church. That's markedly different from the claims made by Rome.

Brendan

I think the decisive word here is "arguably." Indeed one can argue the point.

However, it should also be noted that EPs claims to whatever form of supremecy she beleives she has are not a matter of dogma for an Orthodox Christian. So we're comparing apples to oranges. While the the EP may act like he is the Pope, he is not; however, the Roman Pope can point to various Catholic dogmas to assert and confirm his authority, and Catholic believers are bound to accept this.

Another point is that, one can see "why" this is happening within the EP (without condoning it). First, we have the entire history and praxis of the office of the EP being manipulated by the Turks and Moselems (even to this day), but even more to the point, the EP has shrunk down to a virtual irrelevance, and in principle, exercises authority over a flock no larger than a small Roman Catholic church. The EP, as a matter of survival, is looking for a flock to lead, and claims authority over various churches, either in lands in which there is no authority, or more often, lands in which there is a confusion of authority.

Priest Thomas

Fr. Thomas is certainly correct in his assessment of the reasons why we have seen the EP so active in asserting its jurisdiction, relatively recently, in North America, for example. It brings up the problem we have in Orthodoxy of having the EP based in Istanbul ... it creates a structural issue in Orthodoxy that makes it very hard to resolve our jurisdictional and administrative issues in North America, for example. It's quite understandable why, for example, the EP formally rejected the OCA's autocephaly. It wasn't really because the EP wanted to exercise jurisdiction over "those Russians" (in fact, when the Metropolia first approached the EP about autonomy, the EP directed them to Moscow only later to claim that Moscow didn't have the authority to do what it did .. and what the EP probably thought it never would do!), but rather that the creation of an autonomous North American Church created a real risk for the EP of losing its jurisdiction over its significant North American Greek Orthodox flock, which is the backbone of its jurisdiction these days. It was seen as a threat to the EP's situation vis-a-vis the GOA, and that's why it was rejected by the Phanar. It's also part of a larger issue, and a fairly obvious one, between Moscow and Constantinople about their respective roles in the Orthodox Church. Notice, for example, the marked disinterest of the EP in the Antiochian autonomy. In any case, perhaps this is why when hierarchs like Metr. Philip have suggested that the EP be moved to New York City, there is some logic, as this is really the largest base of the EP's jurisdiction these days.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

But ultimately doesn't Orthodoxy, as per Fr. Schmemann for example, holds that episcopal power itself is absolute?

Sometimes the suggestion is made, on the Orthodox side, that their Patriarchs are less "dictatorial" than the Roman Pope.

Aren't all bishops equally "dictatorial?"

But some are "first" among equals in this respect . . .

Alex

Dear djs,

I think Fr. John Meyendorff would have agreed with you!

Alex

It's alawys a good idea to get the agreement of someone who has already gone on to be "with the Lord."

PT

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

Ah, yes, you are a partison of Fr. Thomas Hopko, no?

But I had the privilege of corresponding with Fr. Prof. Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) when I had questions concerning what I read in his books.

In addition to providing excellent clarifications (which really showed up my own lack of expertise in things theological), Fr. Professor also taught me things that were not in his books.

I know, for example, that Fr. Meyendorff has a great private veneration for ST Francis of Assisi.

When one of his students got up in class to say that only Orthodoxy produces true saints, he was quick to deny that . . .

He often sent me letters with stamps of St Francis of Assisi on them . I believe he referred to him as the "Holy Man of Assisi."

When I once asked him about the veneration of King Charles the Martyr, he wrote that . . ."Orthodoxy does not condemn the private veneration of good people who were not formally Orthodox. It seems to me that King Charles belongs to just such a category."

When I said to djs that I think Meyendorff would have agreed with him, of course I don't know for sure.

But I think he would have. And I hope that I"ll get a chance to ask him about this at some point in the future in a more direct manner.

Alex

Yes, but the last time I checked he was still very much alive. I heard him speak at the Byzantine Catholic gathering in Pittsburgh last week and he looked quite healthy to me.

In invoking his name, I always make it a point to quote him from his writings or tapes, and not to speak for him on subjects in which he's not written or spoken (which can't be many!) or to even make conclusions on what I think he might say or believe.

I also know that Fr. Hopko admires St. John of the Cross, FWIW.

PT

Bless me a sinner, Father Thomas,

I wasn't making a definite, absolute statement, but only something that was albeit a subjective assessment on my part, based on what I have read of Fr. Meyendorff's works and the trends in his thinking as I've interpreted them over the years.

I never said "Fr. Meyendorff DOES agree."

But if you feel that my comments assumed too much and that I'm imputing things to Meyendorff that I have no right to, or else if I'm stretching his thoughts to accommodate my own, then I apologise and withdraw them.

I still maintain that I knew him better than you, Father.

Alex

Hmmm. I've been to his house. He gave me confession several times. I've had many conversations with him. (He was the dean when I was at St. Vlad's after Fr. Schmemann died. I was there for that, too.)

PT

Christ is Risen!

Several dogmas? I'm not sure I would call them dogmas, strictly speaking. I know that Papal Infallibility is a dogma (carefully definied in carefully considered circumstances), but 'the supremecy' is articulated in law. The instruction on "universal juristiction" is in the Code of Canon Law, so does this not fall rather into the area of discipline and legislation, rather than as part of the "faith"? Yes, it stems from Vatican I, which instructed that Jesus conferred upon Peter primacy of honor and juristiction. Pastor Aeternus also used the famous phrase "ordinary and immediate". However I am not sure if these are categorized as 'dogmas' strictly speaking? They are clearly teachings, and are included into the canonical discipline. I would like to think there is a distinction between the Roman Canonical Discipline, and the dogmas of Faith. I am not denying the teaching of course, but only suggesting that the word 'dogma' be used more sparingly.

Elias