www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Moscow Patriarchate

Dear Brendan and Jose,

Yes, Ephraim is right, with the exception that Isidore was Greek and a Metropolitan of Kiev at the time, not "Russian."

Sorry to bring that up. It is important to those of us whose ancestors suffered that religious/national hegemony.

For those who are culturally removed from that, it certainly doesn't make a difference.

Alex

I didn't exactly disagree with Ephrem Reynolds, I merely said he Moscow was raised to the level of Patriarchate by the Patriarch of Jerusalem in an official ceremony in Moscow.

That is a fact, not an opinion.

This prominence of one church in relation to the others is not something permanent. It depends upon internal and external circumstances. In studying the history of the Church, the primacy of prominence and respect is passed from church to church in a natural succession. In Apostolic times, the Church of Jerusalem, without any dispute, had the primacy of authority and importance. She had known Christ; she had heard His words; she saw Him being crucified and arising; and upon her did the Holy Spirit first descend. All who were in a communion of faith and life with her were certain that they walked the road of Christ. This is why Paul, when charged that the Gospel which he taught was not the Gospel of Christ, hastened to explain it before the Church of Jerusalem, so that the agreement of that church might silence his enemies (Gal. 2: 1-2).

Later, that primacy was taken by Rome, little by little. It was the capital of the Roman Empire. A multitude of tried Christians comprised that church. Two leading Apostles had lived and preached within its bounds. A multitude of Martyrs had dyed its soil with their blood. That is why her word was venerable, and her authority in the solution of common problems was prodigious. But it was the authority of the church and not of her bishop. When she was asked for her view in the solution of common problems, the bishop replied not in his own name as a Pope of today would do, but in the name of his church. In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement of Rome begins this way: “The Church of God which is in Rome, to the Church of God which is in Corinth”. He writes in an amicable manner in order to convey the witness and opinion of his church concerning whatever happened in the Church of Corinth. In his letter to the Church of Rome, St. Ignatius the does not mention her bishop anywhere, although he writes as though he were addressing himself to the church which truly has primacy in the hierarchy of the churches of his time.

When St. Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman state to Byzantium, Rome began gradually to lose her old splendor. It became a provincial city. A new local church began to impose itself upon the consciousness of the Christian world: the Church of Constantinople. Rome tried jealously to preserve the splendor of the past, but because things were not conducive to it, it developed little by little its well-known Papal ecclesiology to keep what circumstances would not allow.

The Church of Constantinople played the most significant role throughout the long period of great heresies and of the Ecumenical Councils, and in her turn she gave her share of blood with the martyrdom of thousands of her children during the period of the Iconoclasts.

Besides these churches which at different times had the primacy of authority, there were others which held the second of third place. They were the various patriarchates, old or new, and other important churches or metropolises. There exists, therefore, a hierarchy, but a hierarchy of churches and not a bishops. St. Irenaeus does not advice Christians to address themselves to important bishops in order to find the solution to their problem, but to the churches which have the oldest roots in the Apostles (Adv. Haer, III, 4, 1).

There are not, therefore, organizational, administrative, or legal bonds among the churches, but bonds of love and grace, the same bonds of love and grace which exist among the faithful of every church, clergy of lay. The relationship between presbyter and bishop is not a relationship of employee and employer, but a charismatic and sacramental relationship. The bishop is the one who gives the presbyter the grace of the priesthood. And the presbyter gives the layman the grace of the Holy Mysteries. The only thing which separates the bishop from the presbyter is the charism of ordination. The bishop excels in nothing else, even if he be the bishop of an important church and bears the title of patriarch. “There is not much separating them [the presbyters] and the bishops. For they too are elevated for the teaching and protection of the Church... They [the bishops] surpass them only in the power of ordination, and in this alone they exceed the presbyters” (Chrysostom, Hom. XI. on I Tim).

So it seems Kallistos Ware may not agree with me, but at least St. John Chrysostom does, and that is enough.

Now, when Moscow was elevated to the level of Patriarchate, Constantinople had lost it's splendor, being conquered and ruled by infidels. I would not subscribe to the theory that Moscow was a “third Rome” but it would be difficult to say it was not the most important See at the time. And it was only below that of Jerusalem in the sense that Jerusalem was the “Mother Church.”

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

However it was done, it was an injustice committed against the Kyivan Church that extends to this day, crushed as it was, between Greece and Russia.

Again, this is no big deal for North American Orthodox and Eastern Catholics for whom this matter is merely an ecclesial issue of jurisdiction and what-not.

For others, it is a matter of imperial and religious colonialism.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I guess since no one's rushing to comment on my issue here, I surmise that a) you don't want to hurt my feelings, or b) silence gives consent.

Just a note to say I am grateful to you on both counts!

Alex

Dear Alex:

b).

Sincerely
defreitas

Dear Jose,

Bo tard!

(Is that how you spell it?)

God bless,

Alex

It is interesting that both Constantinople and Kiev claim to descend from St. Andrew the First-Called. I guess it's okay, since Rome and Antioch both claim St. Peter as their Apostolic connection.

Anyways, yes, I think there may have been an idea for a Patriarchate for all of North America, but it was never able to materialize, since none of the Orthodox Churches in North America could agree to join one church. The OCA was the prototype for this. Here's a nother point: is the OCA cannonical?

That's one thing the Orthodox can't have against us. They can never claim we are un-cannonical. And if they do, we can, in true Christian fashion, point the finger back at them and ask:"But are YOU cannonical?!!"

Sorry if I offended anyone.

Daniil

PS "Blahoslovite, ot'tsi chesni i bratiya i proctite mni hrishnomu yaje sohrishykh v sej den' i vo vsia dni jivota moeho slovom dilom ili pomyshleniem i vsim miom chuvstvi dushevnymy i tilesnymy"

Bless me venerable fathers and brethren and forgive me a sinner if I have sinned this day and all the days of my life in word, deed, or thought, and through all my actions of the soul and body.

"It is interesting that both Constantinople and Kiev claim to descend from St. Andrew the First-Called. I guess it's okay, since Rome and Antioch both claim St. Peter as their Apostolic connection".


Dear Daniil:

In the Vatican's reckoning of St. Peter's years they always mention that he reigned in Antioch for [?] and in Rome for [?].

Both Sees were founded by, and have episcopal succession from the Apostle Peter.

You can't compare the Apostolic foundations of Rome and Antioch with those of Constantinople, Kiev and or Moscow.

The Apostolic foundations of those cities by St. Andrew is more-or-less a pious invention.

Constantinople [Byzantium] was believed to have been founded by St. Andrew.

The Saint did not die in the city and his relics were translated there by Constantine who believed the new Capital needed an Apostolic foundation comparable to old Rome.

Like-it-or-not the tradition of St. Andrew founding the Apostolic see of Kiev [and therefore Moscow] is very weak.


Sincerely
defreitas

PS.
Please don't hang the messenger.

defreitas,

Are you saying that all of the traditional Apostolic Churches are questionable or just Apostolic see of Kiev?

Dear Jose,

St Andrew and/or the Christian mission tradition begun by his Apostolic activity definitely did have a foothold in Crimea.

So did St Clement of Rome who was martyred there as well.

There are many traditions that can be debunked along with the St Andrew tradition of Kyiv.

Two most important facts serve as a backdrop here: The Kyivan Church, from its earliest times, conceived of itself as having had Apostolic foundations from both St Andrew and St Clement of Rome. In some ways, St Clement and his relics played a more pertinent role, St Volodymyr dedicated Kyivan Rus' to Clement and his Royal Chapel was also dedicated to him. St Sophia to this day shows his icon on its walls.

Also, no other Church ever challenged the Kyivan Church on this. It was accepted as a legitimate part of tradition.

The Cross of St Andrew, planted by him on the Kyivan Hills, is still venerated in Kyiv in the Church of St Andrew by Rastrelli. We know that he had many Scythian missionaries, among them Sts. Inna, Pinna and Rimma, who spread Christianity like wild-fire throughout the area.

The cult of St Andrew is ancient in Scythia as its patron Saint.

In the Declaration of Arbroath in Scotland, the Scots declared themselves to be descendants of the Scythians and this is why, they said, St Andrew is their patron as well.

St Andrew's symbols have existed in Kyiv and in Crimea since the very dawn of Christianity as well, and archaeologists there, many of whom are surely atheistic or agnostic, are building a strong case for St Andrew's presence in the area.

The boat-ride to Kyiv from the Black Sea has been imitated by many and it would not have posed a great hardship to the Apostle of Scythia to have done so.

In addition, the Kyivan Church, as the bearer of "St Andrew's Christianity," became a vibrant Apostolic Centre and light of the East. It did this in full consciousness of its Apostolic roots going back to St Andrew and St Clement.

The three bar Orthodox Cross of Kyiv with the slanted foot-rest is, as early art demonstrate, a symbol of the St Andrew's "X" Cross which is, in fact, the first letter of Christ's Name in Greek.

There are many pictures of St Andrew standing with the X Cross and, nearby, there is the Cross of Calvary with the slanted foot-rest.

As for St Peter, it is not that he wasn't in Rome, but the way in which Latin Catholics have historically presented his role that requires some review and reassessment.

For one thing, St Peter was both in Antioch and in Rome as well as in many smaller towns and villages where he consecrated bishops and ordained priests.

St Peter was never "Bishop of Rome" since he was an Apostle and Bishops needed to remain put.

St Peter established the Roman See, others say he consecrated more than one bishop, still others that St Paul also began an episcopal line of bishops he consecrated.

Again, we will really never know for sure, as with elements of the story of St Andrew.

We know St Peter and St Paul were martyred in Rome, to be sure.

Later church writers would begin the list of Bishops of Rome "from the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul," and some say this suggests that a single Bishop of Rome was established only after their martyrdom.

All I'm saying is that there are question marks in both traditions, with Sts. Peter and Paul and with St Andrew.

I believe that the Chief Apostles established the See of Rome, just as St Andrew laid the foundation for the later Kyivan Church, established with the baptism of Sts Olha and later Volodymyr.

Church tradition is more important than the musings of historians.

Alex

Dear Alex:

I submit.

Holy Tradition is stronger than the musings of historians.

The founding traditions of the Sees are long and venerable and have not really been seriously questioned.

As a friend of mine once said "Jose you must be less dogmatic".


defreitas

PS.
I love the bit about the slant in the lower beam of the cross.

Dear Jose,

You are wonderful, but we've always known that!

The problem with history, you know, is that there's no future in it . . .

A Ukrainian Orthodox Metropolitan, Ilarion Ohienko, wrote an entire book on the theology of the Cross with the slanted foot-rest, the Orthodox Staurology or theology of the Cross.

The slanted foot-rest is mentioned in the Byzantine Hours as a kind of "Weigh-scale" where Christ inclined toward the Good Thief on His Right.

Thus, His Right Foot and the foot-rest came up while His Left Foot came down.

And we are called to be "brought up" on His Right through faith and grace, as was the Good Thief or Insurrectionist (the original Roman name for political rebels was "bandit" or "thief.").

Origen wrote that the Title of Christ on which Pilate's charge was written that was nailed about Christ's Head was divided into three parts and given to three Churches.

Origen himself visited a Church in Syria where one such part was venerated.

He noted that the wood of the Title was light and that the crayon Pilate used to write the charge (This is Jesus, the King of the Jews) was red in colour.

God bless,

Alex

[ 03-14-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Alex:

I wonder if you have heard that a scholar has just completed a study on the relic, held in one of the Roman churches, of the cross title plaque?

In the study he makes a very good and surprising case for the validity of the relic.

The author even states that the plaque is incomplete and that it was divided up at one time.

I really have to acquire the book.


defreitas

Dear Jose,

How very fascinating!

The Relic of the Crown of Thorns, now without any, had exactly 70 holes in it for 70 thorns.

Someone went out and counted all the Thorns in the reliquaries of Europe.

Guess what? 70 Thorns in all!

And they've also discovered what type of thorns these were. They still grow along with roadsides of Jerusalem.

God bless,

Alex