www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russian Prelate Disputes Role of Ecumenical Patriarch

From Catholic World News Website:

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46837

Oct. 02 (CWNews.com) - The Russian Orthodox Church has lodged a serious objection to the notion that the Patriarch of Constantinople is the worldwide leader of the Orthodox faith.

Following up on a protest that he had lodged during meetings of the joint Catholic-Orthodox theological commission earlier this month, the Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion of Vienna told the Interfax news service that Catholics must not impose their model upon the Orthodox world.

Bishop Hilarion said that the Moscow patriarchate welcomes further discussion on the question of whether the Catholic model-- with Church centered in Rome-- could be compatible with the Orthodox model of autonomous churches. However, he said, that discussion can continue only if "an ecclesiological model in which the Patriarch of Constantinople occupies the place of an �Eastern Pope� is not imposed on the Orthodox Church."

The Russian Orthodox prelate was reacting to a statement put forward during the 9th meeting of the Catholic-Orthodox theological commission. That statement said that after the schism of the 11th century it became impossible to hold an ecumenical council including all Christian leaders, but the separated churches "continued to hold �general� councils, gathering together the bishops of local churches in communion with the See of Rome and the See of Constantinople."

In the Orthodox world, Bishop Hilarion argued forcefully, the requirement of maintaining "communion with Constantinople" was never regarded as essential, as it is in the Catholic Church. While the Ecumenical Patriarch is recognized as the "first among equals," he said, the autocephalous Orthodox churches have different understandings of the nature of that role. "Some rather regard this primacy as purely honorary, while others give certain coordinating functions to the Patriarch of Constantinople and see him as highest court."

The Orthodox understanding of primacy cannot be changed, the Moscow representative said, without a worldwide meeting of Orthodox leaders. He expressed resentment that Cardinal Walter Kasper (bio - news), the leading Catholic representative at meetings of the joint theological commission, had pressed for a vote on the disputed statement. Matters of doctrine, the Orthodox prelate said, should not be tested by majority vote.

Cardinal Kasper has said that he was surprised by the Russian Orthodox objection to the proposed statement-- to which the Patriarchate of Constantinople had given its full support. But Bishop Hilarion told Interfax that the Moscow patriarchate would remain "hard-line" on the question.

I'm wondering if Constantinople actually did approve what Cdl. Kasper said it approved? It seems that, in recent days, Moscow & Constantinople have been more at odds with each other, than either of them has been with Rome.

Dn. Robert

I think this particular issue emerged during the closing meeting of the 9th Plenary Session of the International Commission held in Belgrade this September 18-25, 2006 while the delegates were drafting a (joint) communique memorializing the proceedings of the 9th Plenary Session.

Only the delegates of the ROC-MP "disagreed" to the wordings of the Communique, more particularly to the reference that the See of Constantinople (or the Ecumenical Patriarchate) should be afforded the "leading role" in the ecumencial talks as the "first among equals" in Orthodoxy.

Bishop Hilarion of Vienna, the lead delegate of the ROC-MP, turned to Cardinal Kasper for a resolution of the issue as Catholic Co-Chairman of the 9th Plenary Session. Bishop Hilarion balked at presenting the issue to Met. Zizioulas, the Orthodox Co-Chairman, because he was already at odds with the Metropolitan, being a representative of the EP.

As then the Chairman being called to "rule" on the issue, Cardinal Kasper must have asked the Orthodox delegates if they wanted a "vote" on the motion presented by Bishop Hilarion. The Catholic delegates did not vote on this exclusively Orthodox issue.

By an overwhelming 13-1 vote, the Orthodox delegates approved the wording of the communique referring to the See of Constantinople (Ecumencial Partiarchate) as having the leading role as "first among equals" in the ecumenical talks between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches. (Each Orthodox Church had 1 vote. 14 autocephalous Churches were in Belgrade. The Patriarchate of Bulgaria inexplicably did not send representatives. The OCA was not counted as autocephalous.)

In sum, I don't think Cardinal Kasper nor the Catholic Church is forcing the Orthodox Churches to adopt a Catholic ecclesiology. The problem is "internal" pitting the ROC-MP versus the rest of Orthodoxy and Moscow's perception, being the largest, that she should be the leader of the Orthodox world.

Amado

That's my take on it. Perhaps some Eastern Orthodox posters would like to comment.

Dn. Robert

I found this between the lines: "Or the model where the Russian Orthodox Church is at the top of the pyramid."

I think the recent move of Bishop Basil of Britain and some of the priests and parishes to the P of C has heightened the power struggle between Moscow and Constantinople.

Sometimes it helps to take history into account. For a short time during the post-Revolutionary period of the USSR, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized the "Living Church". The Moscow Patriarchate has never forgiven Constantinople for it.

Fr. Serge

Not to mention the recent Estonia issue.

I found the article on the Russian Interfax site provides more ifno from the Russian point of view:

03 October 2006
http://www.interfax-religion.com/act=dujour&div=76
... http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=dujour&div=76
Bishop Hilarion thinks that Cardinal Kasper �is absolutely right in that it was an issue on which the Orthodox participants in the dialogue are not unanimous.� However, it is even more amazing that the Catholic Cardinal put this issue to the vote and that �the Orthodox had to vote in the presence of the Catholics.�
�The problems of Orthodox ecclesiology (the teaching on the Church), its dogmatic teaching and canonical order cannot be resolved by voting. The only way is to seek consensus within Orthodoxy and after it, if possible, between Orthodoxy and Catholicism,� the Moscow Patriarchate�s representative said further.
The Orthodox Church has no universal primate, or �supreme pontiff� (pontifex maximus). There is a bishop primus inter pares, the position held before the schism of 1054 by the bishop of Rome, and afterwards de facto kept by the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, the Orthodox Churches vary in their understanding of the Patriarch of Constantinople�s role and primacy. �Some rather regard this primacy as purely honourable, while others give certain coordinating functions to the patriarch of Constantinople and see him as highest court�, the bishop said.
The recent case of the Moscow Patriarchate�s Diocese of Sourozh�s former administrator, who was received in Constantinople�s jurisdiction without a canonical release, is �a visual illustration of the dilemma.� It shows that Constantinople probably �thinks it has a right to be the supreme authority to which all clergy who do not like their Local Churches may appeal,� bishop Hilarion added.
However, the Moscow Patriarchate believes �on the solid basis of the canons of the Early Church� that no Patriarchate, including that of Constantinople,has a right to receive in its jurisdiction clergy from other Local Churches without canonical release, he said.

It would be nice to see the actual text of the 'working document' under consideration, but I do not think that it is available online. Nevertheless, the Moscow Patriarchate's criticism of the document (i.e., if the document is trying to give Constantinople a type of 'universal jurisdiction') is theologically sound. The concept of 'universal jurisdiction' is foreign to the eucharistic ecclesiology of the ancient Fathers and the Orthodox Churches.

If experience is any guide, someone will leak the text of the working document before too long.

Fr. Serge

Someone needs to remind Moscow that it's not part of the Pentarchy.

I understand Moscow's objections to some extent, but Moscow is neither the leader of the Eastern Orthodox faith, either. Just the Russian Orthodox!

Logos Teen

being in the Pentarchy means, other than an honor, or being old, absolutely nothing. And I wouldn't dismiss Moscow as just the leader of the Russian Orthodox. The Russian Orthodox comprise over 80% of the world's Orthodox.

Alexandr

Considering the historic self-placement of Moscow as the Third Rome and self-imposed arbiter of other Orthodox ecclesiastical disputes outside of Russia after the fall of Constantinople, I do not really see theological grounds as does brother Todd, but rather perhaps the historical reality of left-over Soviet era turf consciousness.

I also suspect some of this may also be underlying justification for the past lapses over Estonia, as well as laying future grounds for disunity if an EP union with the KP, UAOC or other body happens (now made much more likely by the EP's stance on the English parishes).

On a bit of a tangent, a read of Father Borys Gudziak's seminal work on the Kyivan Metropolitanate shows the regular contact with Constantinople that the Metropolia continued to keep well after 1453.
DRLB

Aleksandr suggests that the Moscow Patriarchate should have the priority in Orthodoxy because it has the greater number of faithful. By that logic, the USSR should have accepted the Chinese as the leaders of world Communism!

To get more serious, by that logic we should all be either Arians or Nestorians.

Fr. Serge

Or Roman Catholics. :rolleyes:


~Isaac