www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

Forgive me if this is the wrong sub forum for this thought and if I inadvertently offend anyone, I do apologize in advance.

I feel we are a witness to history within the Church. I see Rome and Constantinople appear to get closer. I see Rome and Moscow still fighting and fussing over things. I also now see some huge changes coming from Constantinople that impacts Moscow.

It appears to me that Constantinople is flexing it muscle and exhibiting/using the power accorded it. I base this comment upon the announcements of "No 3rd Rome", and the current decision to create the bishop of Amphipolis.

Previous to these last two actions, what was the relationship between Moscow and Constantinople?

Additionally, I recall reading on line quite a while back that canonically, any Orthodox Church in diaspora falls by default under the Ecumenical Patriarch. Is this correct? If so, does this have bearing on the current relationships?

Does anyone have any thoughts as to the future relationship between Moscow and Constantinople? Constantinople recognized Moscow as a local church in the past. Could Constantinople "change" its mind?

One last thing. Lets say Rome, Moscow, and Constantinople achieved through the grace of the Holy Spirit communion again. Who would be responsible for the Roman Catholic churches in Russia? Would the MP administer them? Same for Orthodox churches of the diaspora in other parts of the world. If that area is canonically Roman Catholic, would the Orthodox church be administered by the Roman bishop?

Thank you for your time.

In Christ,

Michael

Dear Micheal,

I do think this is the right forum, and I don't think that you could EVER offend anyone...you just don't have it in you!

Regards,
Alice

Michael B, a few thoughts.

The problem for the Patriarchate of Constantinople is it has essentially next to no muscle to flex. It is an incredibly enfeebled position due to historical and political reasons. It also directly controls now only a small portion of the Orthodox Christian world.

I think largely they have been competitors for leadership in the Orthodox world.

I believe there is a canon that says the �barbarian lands� fall under the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch. In reality things have not worked out that way. Starting in the 19th century the various Orthodox churches fully or nominally under the control of the Ecumenical Patriarch began the process of achieving their own autonomy. When Orthodoxy spread to the West, leadership usually went back to whichever was the founding church. I think all total there are only now something like 3 million Orthodox Christians directly under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the majority of them I believe in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America. I would not say this directly has a bearing of the current relationships in the Orthodox world, but is a reflection of the diminished status of the Church of Constantinople.

No, Constantinople does not have the power to change its mind even if that were a decision it wanted to make. Also any Pan Orthodox Council would be heavily weighted to the Russians because they are by far the largest Orthodox Church, in terms of total number of adherents and bishops. The position of the Ecumenical Patriarch is in large part reflected by the number of titular bishops represented in her ranks. That is not a good situation.

I don�t really have an answer for that question. The only thing I could ever foresee is a sort of loose affiliation between the two sides. I don�t see Orthodox bishops ever accepting universal ordinary jurisdiction or inclusion in the Roman Curial sytem. I can definitely say administration by a Roman bishop would not be accepted.

Andrew

Dear Alice,

thank you for your kind thoughts. I am not deserving!

Michael

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your input. I learned a lot from it. The reason that I asked about the jurisdiction of bishops is due to recalling canon law stating there should be one bishop per city, or something like that. With so many bishops from so many jurisdictions, to me it makes sense to reallocate many to areas that would benefit from a more close, personal and spiritual nature.

Take the Tampa Bay area for instance. We have a Roman Catholic Archbishop in charge of St. Petersburg, Tampa, and all the surrounding area. Yet we have virtually every Orthodox and Catholic churches down here (Greek, Antiochian, Coptic, OCA, ROCOR, HOCNA, TOC, Syrian, Roman, Ruthenian, Tridentine, Ukranian, Maronite, etc.). Would it not make sense to [if communion was feasible] to take a place where there are 4 or 5 bishops and send one to Tampa, one to St. Petersburg, one to Orlando, etc. for spirituality? My bishop lives in Passaic NJ. Now that is a long haul to visit the parish. I am sure many of the other Churches listed above are in similar situations.

Just some more unorganized thoughts.

In Christ,

Michael

Dear Michael you said: I say:

I don't think the jurisdictional problem can be solved, at least not yet. The important thing is to have intercommunion and in time the other problems may be solved...or then again, they may never be. :rolleyes:

Zenovia

Dear Michael,

Actually my personal belief is that if we were to restore communion with Rome, and reunite with our First Bishop, then our own jurisdictional problems within the Orthodox Church will be solved... through the workings of the HOly Spirit of course.

As for being under the same bishops as that of the Latin Church, I don't think that will ever come about. They will probably remain separate entities, with separate organizational systems.

Zenovia

Michael

I think the canonical requirement of one city, one bishop arose in a world where it was not conceivable that within one geographic area there would be multiple rites or ecclesial groups all present. To me it�s an ideal, but something that for various reasons cannot and in some cases should not be realized.

I�m not really sure what the answer is, but I know that simply being in communion with the Roman Pontiff does nothing to sort these issues out. There are multiple Roman and Eastern Catholic hierarchs in the same geographic location at least in Philadelphia, New York, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, Los Angeles and probably some place else I�m not aware of. It does seem sad to me that ultimately the Eastern Catholic bishops in this country are not under the authority of their own Patriarchs, but under Rome.

Neither is this simply a New World issue though. In the Middle East there are multiple Catholic bishops serving in the same cities in at least two places. There is a separate Rusyn diocese (Mukačevo) within the territory of the UGCC, and I believe the bishop of that diocese has said they have no intention of integrating with the UGCC. No doubt other examples could be cited.

So I don�t see this issue going away. I would also say it is my belief in your instance that you are best served by being under a bishop who is part of and faithful to your own tradition and that this concern trumps that of geographical proximity.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Regarding this quote:

What can we do to make a difference? This Patriarchy holds 2nd in position of primacy of all the Local Churches and 1st within the Orthodox world. And are not the other original Patriarchs also in similar positions [weaknesses due to subjugation/invasion of alternative religious groups]? The Patriarch of Constantinople is, in my opinion, the head of the entire Byzantine world. Even though I belong to a Catholic sui iuris Church, I have great reverence for the Patriarch, and more importantly, feel that when he speaks on matters of the Orthodox church, that he speaks infallibly.

I still advocate very strongly the creation of a Byzantium state within the physical area now called Turkey, with the Hagia Sophia as the centerpiece of this state. To me, it is only right and just to make this happen. The question then, is how? And I also feel the same should be done for the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. This will preserve the original structure of the Church and honor the blood, sweat and tears of our Holy Fathers and Apostles as they brought the Word of God to heathens such as me.

The bishop of Rome must have faced similar problems in the middle early centuries. What successes propelled the bishop to survive? What lessons learned can we apply to his brothers?

Dear Zenovia, thank you for your reply. I understand and grasp the situation more firmly now with Andrew's and your inputs. I almost forgot the lessons learned with the Ruthenian Church in America.

In Christ,

Michael

Michael, I don't want to say the situation is hopeless, but it is dire. The Ecumenical Patriarch shares in the larger problem of the disappearance of native Christians in the Middle East. The idea of a resurgent Patriarchate and a return of some sort of semblance of Byzantium died with the disastrous military defeats suffered by Greece in Asia Minor in the 20�s. That was followed by the population exchange that pretty much emptied Turkey of all Greeks. The death of the Megali idea will have far ranging consequences.

Andrew

Dear Michael,

Let me fill you in on the history of Asia Minor,(Turkey). At the beginning of the last century, Greece had wars in order to claim lands that were predominantly Greek speaking and under the Ottomans. I believe after WW I, the Greek army occupied the Greek city of Smyrna (now Izmir), and the Anatolian, (Turkish), coastline of the Aegean.

During the war of 1922 or 1923, the Greek army decided to advance towards Constantinople, and ended up facing English, French and Italian troops. They did not want Greece occupying Constantinople, (now Istanbul), even though the majority of the people in Constantinople were Greek speaking. It was too strategic...and it seems the Orthodox were always perceived as more of an enemy than the Turks.

In the mean time, Kemal Ataturk began uniting the Turkish people, and under his leadership began to fight the Greeks. The Turkish army was enormous compared to the Greek army, so the Greeks suffered a grave defeat.

The Turks began to massacre the Greek population living in that part of the world, and as the people ran into Smyrna in order to get ships to leave, the Turks set fire to the city. The people were caught between the fire, Turks and the sea, and the Italian (and maybe French) ships that were in the harbor, would not save them....but rather, pushed any who swam to them, back into the water. Some Japanese and American ships realized the situation and helped.

Had it not been though, for a heroic American teacher that lived in Turkey, very few would have survived. This American realized that the Greek navy had ships to rescue the people, but were afraid that if they went to Smyrna to save the people, the Turks might attack and confiscate them.

So this heroic man convinced them to allow him to use them...and they made him an admiral. Well it worked. He saved quite a few.

Now Ernest Hemingway stated when reporting on the situation, that the Greeks should not have advanced, but rather consolidate their position along the coast and the city of Smyrna.

In the meantime, a large amount of Greeks in the Pontus on the Black Sea tried to set up their own nation, but they too were defeated, and ethnically cleansed along with every other Greek except for those living in the Allied occupied city of Constantinople.

In the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, it was decided that there would be a population exchange between Greece and Turkey. About a half a million Turks in Greece left for Turkey, while approx. two million Greeks in Turkey left for Greece. Part of the treaty specified that the Patriarch would be allowed to remain in Turkey, providing that 25,000 Turks would continue to live in Greek Thrace. Well the Patriarch has been almost stripped of everything...including people, while the Turks in Thrace have now multiplied into approx. 130,000. :rolleyes:

In the 1950's and/or 1960's, with the trouble brewing in Cyprus between the majority Greeks and minority Turks after gaining independance from the British, the Turks decided to retaliate whatever their brethren were suffering, by persecutating the Greeks in Constantinople. Again the Greeks were forced to leave pennyless for the Greek mainland.

In the meantime, Turkey made a law stating that in order for someone to be Patriarch, they must have Turkish citizen...so unless there is a drastic change in that country, there is no one that can become a Patriarch. :rolleyes:

Of course the Patriarch can move to another place, and probably in the end he will have to if the situation remains the same, but the Turks will not allow him to take any Church possessions, which I assume must include ancient texts, etc. At this time, there is only about five thousand elderly Greeks living in Turkey.

Zenovia

I would like to add one thing to Zenovia's historical synopsis which is quite accurate. The US High Commissioner in Constantinople for the period of 1918-1924 was also involved in the blocking of Greek forces from occupying the city. He was also responsible for the blocking of aid during the evacuation of Smyrna by US ships that were in that port at that time. His direct order was that unless US citizenship could be proved no aid was to be rendered to any of the population of that city. The documents that exist from the archives of the US State Department show that he was extremely biased against the Greek Kingdom and the Greek people in general, referring to them in very derogatory terms.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Zenovia and Father Anthony,

What an absolutely horrid, horrid story. I am currently having very unChristian and uncharitable thoughts towards American, English, French and Italian governments to allow this fiasco to develop!

I apologize for my lack of knowledge of the region, but will work on bringing that up to speed.

So, is there any way to diplomatically prove many citizens of Greece have some type of dual citizenship with Turkey? [I realize this is stretching things but it could prove to be a pivotal point in saving the Patriarch]. If so, then there could still be many candidates in the future for Patriarch.

In Germany, you are a citizen if born of German parents or on German soil. So if some are left that migrated back to the Greek homeland, and if Turkey has a soil/blood citizenship clause, then this could be a workaround. Just a thought.

Michael

Michael,

When the Greeks were forced to relocate to Greece from Turkey, they did so under certain conditions. First, they were not allowed to migrate with anything of value, they were forced to sign a document that stated that they were leaving of thier own "free" will, and they were permanently stripped of their citizenship.

These people were the ones that the original "Niesan" Passports for refugees and stateless peoples were created for. They have no claim to any citizenship in the Turkish Republic.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+