www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Is the Ecumenical Patriarch making a power play?

Well I guess the question has already been asked...

I have seen quite a lot of suppositions that the EP is trying to become an Eastern Pope and that he is consolidating power. What is the learned opinion of people here? I am not familiar with the politics and what not, so not sure how far the accusation has merit?

Thanks,

Anton

Dear Anton,

Although I don't know about the passion arousing hysteria of calling the E.P. the 'Pope' of the East, I would definitely say that the Ecumenical Patriarch is trying to consolidate his power.

I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, in that only when the Orthodox have some kind of unity and strength within, will they be in a position to make the reconciliation of the Western and Eastern churches a real possibility.


With love in Christ,
Alice

The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholemew has caused three schisms in Orthodoxy since his ascent. He stole Churches in Estonia, setting up altar against altar. Then he went after Jerusalem for setting up parishes in America for Arabs begging the JP to set up parishes for them (long story), and excommunicated two of then-Patriarch Diodoros' bishops who were on staff at the Phanar and threatened to excommunicate Diododors himself (Diodoros reminded him in a letter that of course that was impossible since they are of equal rank as patriarchs, but for the good of the Church worked out a deal with Patriarch Bartholemew). Most recently, P. Bartholemew came out of the blue and started contesting elections in his dioceses in Greece which are administered by the Church of Greece by an agreement between the two. While he has a right over these dioceses, the so-called "New Territories," it was strange that he waited until now to "flex" his muscles. This caused the two month long schism with Greece.

Patriarch Bartholemew also almost caused a schism with Russia again over Ukraine by inviting members of the uncanonical Ukrainian bodies to Constantinople and discussing taking them in and forming a Kievan Church under Constantinople; while I personally wouldn't mind an autocephalous Church of Kiev (Kyiv for my Ukrainian friends), I wouldn't want it under Constantinople.

Next let's examine the case of Korea, where there was an already-existing Russian diocesan structure, where the Pat. of Constantinople set up shop.

We could also discuss how Constantinople ended any future reconciliation with Old Calendarists by blasphemously "reordaining" Metropolitans Paisios and Vikentios even though they were already bishops (having been ordained in the ROCOR lines and having been in communion with ROCOR).

Patriarch Bartholemew clearly views himself as an Eastern Pope and thinks that union with the West is more important than splitting up the Orthodox Church. That is what is truly unfortunate. His politics are divisive and getting in the way of Orthodox unity in Jesus Christ.

anastasios

As an outsider looking in, may I humbly state my observations on this subject. It is my understanding that the Ecumenical Patriarch is considered "first among equals" in the Orthodox Church. As such isn't he more or less the leading spokesman for the Orthodox faithful around the world? I'm not abreast of all of the power stuggles that go on within the Orthodox Church, and I realize the title of EP doesn't give him primacy throughout the Church, but can't he exercise the authority of being Ecumenical Patriarch, (whatever that authority might entail), without being an "Eastern Pope"?

In many years of reading and learning about the Orthodox Church, I realize the the beauty of the faith, worship, and tradition of the Orthodox. What I can't fathom is all of the in-fighting and division that tears at the fiber of what is a most beautiful witness to Christ in a troubled world. I think the time is way overdue for a world-wide council or synod of all the Orthodox Churches to reconcile and mend the wounds that divide the Church.

The Moscow Patriachate was a Communist organization, fully under the secular authorities of the Soviet Union.

They were the ones who stole the self determination of Orthodox Estonians who rightly gained their autonomy and who were integrated to Moscow under the reign of terror and opression.

The Czarist Regime and the Soviet State had the same Imperialistic ambitions, to control many countries that had fought for independence for long time, and it's unfortunate that the Church blindly followed this abusive policy.

It's true that both Ukrainian and Estonian (who aren't Slavic people) Orthodox Christians had important spiritual tides with Russia, but remember Russia also has the rite of the Greek Church and was once under Cosntantinople before they seeked for independence? Does that mean they had to be under the Greeks for ever? Why?
It's the same for the Ukrainians and Estonians, independent nations with a mature Orthodoxy.

Dear Mexican,

As I said, Ukrainian autocephaly is something I support. Just not under Constantinople.

Estonia is too small to have its own Orthodox Church. And there already are Orthodox bishops there, so Pat. Bartholemew set up altar against altar.

He learned his lesson when Moscow broke communion with him. He didn't repeat his mistake in Ukraine.

anastasios

No, Patriarch Bartholemew is not a leading spokesman for Orthodoxy even though he'd like to be.

But you are right, the infighting really sullies the witness.

anastasios

WIth no offense, but how can you say "Estonia is too small to have a church of its own"...it really does boggle the mind. So Estonians are not worthy to have their own church???

And as for Greece, perhaps why the EP waited for so long to make the move was that it was only lately that Greece refused to follow the deal that was made. As you yourself said, he was fully within his rights..

As he is fully within rights to suspend the Bulgarian priest in Constantinople, for which he and his Synod are being tried by the Turkish authorities.

Anton

The majority of Orthodox Belivers in Estonia has remained in the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The majority of Orthodox Christians in Estonia are ethnic Russians, so for many of them it's probably is important to keep the connection to the Russian Orthodox Church, but even Estonian-speaking parishes have refused to join the autonomous church of the EP and instead remained in the jurisdiction of the MP.

Christian

However the situation has presently worked out in Estonia, there are forces there as strong as in the Ukraine for getting rid of all vestiges of Russian colonialism.

I'd be curious to hear more of the "long story" regarding Arabs begging the JP for parishes in the US. Although, it's pretty clear that there is more to this long story than just length. The handful of JP parishes in the US include Felton, one in Seattle with liturgies in Slavonic, etc.

Understandable for the JP but not the EP. Why?

btw, doesn't the historical role of the EP in Orthodox tradition include great control over other Patriarchates?

Because we don't need to keep setting up more and more autocephalous churches based on ethnic divisions. There already are too many autocephalous churches in my opinion. And as another poster commented, the vast majority of Orthodox in Estonia are Russians.

Having the right to do something and exercising one's rights heavy handedly aren't the same. The New Territories are clearly Patriarch Bartholemew's however, the Church of Greece has been electing Metropolitans for those dioceses for 70 years.

As you will note, I did not mention that case because you are right, any Orthodox living in Turkey must commemorate Patriarch Bartholemew.

anastasios

I won't post on this because a) I don't have immediate access to all of the facts and b) I don't want to disparage certain Orthodox hierarchs. However, if you are really interested, I would suggest you contact a Jerusalem Patriarchate priest and ask him--preferrably one of the Arab priests if you are interested in how the Arabs felt in this case.

Because in the case of the JP, it is sending in priests to minister to its diaspora flock. In the case of the EP in Estonia it was blatantly territorial.

Yes and no. The manner of exercising primacy is incidental, local, and historical. In other words, it changes. In late Byzantine times the Patriarch of Constantinople had huge sway over the other patriarchates which had largely gone to the Non-Chalcedonians. Under the Turkocratia, the Patriarch of Constantinople was the Ethnarch of all Greeks in the empire and as such had huge powers over the other patriarchs. But the principle of collegiality held in principle, and now that that era is over, the ecclesiastical notion of collegiality has again become a reality.

The Ecumenical Patriarch has some primacy in a sense over the other patriarchs but most of this is within the Greek sphere and is honorary and self-given by the other patriarchs. Pat. Bartholemew would not dream of trying to interfere in Moscow, for instance.

anastasios

"Then he went after Jerusalem for setting up parishes in America for Arabs begging the JP to set up parishes for them"

I have trouble believing this given the historic tension between the Arab majority (laity and parish priests) and Greek minority (Patriarch, Curia and Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre) of the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear friends,

As everybody knows the only Eastern pope is his holyness the "patriarch and pope of Alexandria" (His holyness Shenuda for the Copsts, Petros for the Greek Orthodoxs, Stephanos for Catholic Copts and Gregory III for the Melkite Catholics). Acording to the canons of the Oecumenical Councils the patriarch of Constantinople is the first among the bishops of the Church of the East, in the same way the bishop of Rome is the first among the western bishops. The see of Constantinople has got the same priviliges of the see of Rome because of being the Second Rome and the primacy of honor after the Ancient Rome. The canons of the Oecumenical Councils also give to the Oecumenical Patriarchate the jurisdiction over the barbar peoples which become part of the Christian Oikoumene, which in the time of the Councils where in the Northern and eartern borders of the Byzantine Empire. The Oecumenical Throne had jurisdiction over nations such as Russia, Ukrania and Estonia, and in fact over all the Orthodox who did not belong to the Orthodox patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Oecumenical Patriarchate granted autonomy under its jurisdiction to the Churches of the Servian and Bulgarian people till the dificult times of the Turkish rule, when unfortunately Greeek clergy started with a policy of Hellenization of the Slavic churches in the Othoman Empire. Everybody knows how did the Church of Russia (I have no problem with Russian Orthodox or with their patriarchate) obtained autonomy tomos of autonomy from the Oecumenical Patriarchate and its own patriarch (by kidnapping the Oecumenical patriarch during a visit to Russia)and about Third Rome' s political and religious theory and the effords of the Russian Patriarchate to gain the primacy over the other Orthodox Churches. Unfortunately for patriarch Alexis the name of the Patrirchate of Moscow is not found in the canons of the Oecumenical Councils. Everybody knows how the Russian Patriarchate did grant autonomy to certain churches (OCA, Japan) without the aprovement of the other Orthodox Churches and has also suspend the autonomy to other Orthodox or not (The Greek catholic Church of Ukrania)churches wich were part of the former Soviet Union (estonia, Poland) or in former socialits countries.

About patriarch Bartholomew schims:

The Oecumenical Patriarchate had granted autonomy to the Church of Estonia when Estonia was a indepent nation as is today wich was suspended uncannonically by the Patriarchate of Moscow

The fact that different churches were result of the Russian missionaries can not be considered an obstacle to the jurisdiccion of the Oecumenical Patriarchate over the "barbar" nation.

The schism of patriarch Diodoros (may the Lord grnat him eternal rest) tokk place when the Patriarchate of Jerusalem whanted to create paralel old calendar jurisdictions among faithfuls of the Oecumenical patriarchate in Australia, America, Greece and Cyprus.

and, finally, it was Archbishop Christodoulos who consecrated bishops for sees under the jurisdictions of the Oecumenical patriarchate and not the Oecumenical patriarchte who consecrated bishops for sees of the autonomous Church of Greece.

But did the Ecumenical Patriarchate have the right to grant autonomy to Estonia in the first place? Estonia was never under the juridiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, before independence it was of course a part of the Russian Empire and the jurisdiction of the Russian Church.

This is were the core of the conflic is, the view of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is that only it can grant autochephalous and autonomous status to "new" churches, while the Moscow Patriarchate belives that it has thethe right to grant such status to it's daugther churches. An example of this is the dispute over the status of the OCA which the EP refuses to recognize as autochephalous.

Christian