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

Dear Orthodox of the Scandinavian land,

The problem is that Moscow grants and deprives from their autocefaly "tomoi" not only "daugther" churches (OCA, Japan) but also her own "mother" church (the Kievan Church is the mother church of the Church of Moscow although under its cannonical jurisdicction), "sister" churches (Orthodox Churches in Slovakia and the Tchek republic, for example, which receive the Gospel from Saint Cyrill and Methodius and where the churches of the Greek communities were put uncanonically under the jurisdiction of Moscow )and also "far relatives" churches (although now Orthodox and Catholic Churches consider each other sister churches and Kiev is the motherland of Russia in the times of Stalin the Greek Catholic Church in Ukrania was something like a far relative for the Church of Moscow).

Yours in Christ (sorry for my poor English)
FR

Speak to any Arab member of the Jerusalem Patrarichate in America.

anastasios

Not accurate. He had defacto influence due to his position in the (Eastern) Roman Empire. There is no canon to justify this though.


That canon confines jurisdiction over Barbar nations to those Barbar nations which were soujourning in Asia, Pontus, and Thrace, the three dioceses (civil) closest to Constantinople--NOT the whole world!

No, he wanted to set up Churches in Australia and America for his Arab faithful which requested it. As far as in Greece and Cyprus, he merely gave moral support to His Eminence Metropolitan Cyrpian of the True Orthodox Church of Greece with whom he was on friendly relations. If Patriarch Bartholemew had a problem with this he shouldn't have tried to settle it by "excommunicating" him which is something he has NO power to do.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

If you want to join the camp that sees him as a modernist ecumentist heretic, so be it. But your arguments are a real mish-mash, somtimes favoring traditional practice against canons (JP, Greece), sometimes insisting canons, even on particular interpretations of canons (barbars), over traditions.

ISTM that since its creation, the EP wielded great power within Orthodoxy until the break-up of the last empire of his residence. If this innovationis touted as some appropriate restoration of proper ecclesiology against Orthodox history (and the various Protestants, Mormons, Neo-gnostics, etc. sects will hold with you on this point), them one might expect and also favor a similar diminution in the scope of the the MP's power now that Russian empire and Soviet Union are history. Or not. Perhaps this ox should not be gored.

The Arab-Americans I know are all Antiochian Orthodox. How many JP parishes serve a core of Paestinian Americans. From the Indiana list I learn that the number of Palestinian American parishioners in Felton is identically zero.

Did the EP have the power to to excommunicate the Pope of Rome?

Dear Anastasios,

I find your appeal to the canons very interesting. What happened to the Nicene Canons that stated that Alexandria would be second after Rome? The very manner by which the Russian Church obtained her status is against the historic canons of the Church. But we let all this go. Time simply managed to gloss over the canons.

I am not questioning the status quo. I just want to point out that the Orthodox have not been very consistent in its appeal to the canons in general. This whole hoopla with the EP may blow over given time, and peace will reign once again in the Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Anastasius,


The fact that the Ecumanical patriarchate had in fact jurisdiction over nations such as Russia, Ukrania and Estonia is something that historically nobody can deny. From whom therefore did the Russian Chuch obtained its freedom? Was not Metropolitan isidoros of the clergy of Constantinople? Was not the Church of Constantinople which granted autonomy tomos to the Church in estonia in 1922 if I am not wrong?
Had not the Church of Constantinople jurisdiction over the Bulgarians and the Servian when it erected for them autonomous archbishopcrips in Pec, Ochris and later in Tyrnavo? Has not the Ecumanical Patriarchate have jurisdiction over the sees of Northern Greece although they are not in Asia, Pontus and Thrace? Did not the Ecumenical patriarchate had jurisdiction over the whole Greece although the sees of the Eastern Illyricum that were part of the Patriarchate of Rome and during the reign of emperor Leo III became part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

About the schim of patriach Diodoros ( I do not like to use this title) . I had read something in the internet about excommunicated clergy of the Antiochian Archdiocese of America trying to be acepted by the OCA or the Patriarchate of Jerusalem but probably you ignore about former patriarch activity among GREEKS in America, Australia, Cyprus and Greece, I send you an article about it

Fromn: http://www.anemos.com/Diaspora/fanari/engl.html

December 23, 1993, CITY EDITION HEADLINE: Friction in the Greek Orthodox Church has led to excommunications and demotions BYLINE: By PATRICK COMERFORD

BODY: GREEK Orthodox churches around the world are threatening to depose Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem and have excommunicated two archbishops on his staff, Archbishop Timotheos of Lydda and Archbishop Isychios of Kapitolias. Patriarch Diodoros has been given an ultimatum allowing him until Saturday, Christmas Day, December 25th, to "repent", although the Greek Orthodox Church in Jerusalem celebrates Christmas on January 7th. However, Greek Orthodox pilgrims to Jerusalem and the Holy Land have been told that the action against Patriarch Diodoros and his clergy should not affect their journeys, and in their open letter the church leaders say "our respect for the holy sites remains deep, whole and undiminished". Archbishop Timotheos and Archbishop Isychios were deposed and reduced to the rank of monks in a declaration signed by Greek Orthodox leaders from all over the world, including Patriarch Bartholomeos of Constantinople (Istanbul), Patriarch Parthenios of Alexandria, and archbishops from Cyprus, Greece, the US, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Archbishop Grigorios of Thyateria leader of the Greek Orthodox Church in Britain and Ireland. Patriarch Diodoros began causing friction in the Greek Orthodox churches when he allowed a small schismatic church in Greece the Old Calendarists led by Archbishop Chrysostom "of Athens" and Bishop Cyprian "of Oropos and Fyli" to establish formal links with the Church of Jerusalem in the face of protests from the Greek Orthodox leader in Greece, Archbishop Seraphim of Athens, and other church leaders. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem has also been accused of poaching church members in Africa from the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and of supporting a split in the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia one of the largest communities of Greek emigres. The concerted action against Patriarch Diodoros was taken after he refused to attend a recent meeting of Greek Orthodox leaders in Istanbul, chaired by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The open letter signed by church leaders deposing Patriarch Diodoros and his two archbishops says they are "unrepentant" and "continue to scandalise and divide the Greek people, both inside and outside Greece." Orthodox churches have dropped the name of Patriarch Diodoros from all liturgical prayers "for as long as he remains in this unacceptable state of ecclesiastical anomaly," according to the letter. In addition, four Greek Orthodox clergy in Australia have been deposed for supporting the Patriarch of Jerusalem. However, Patriarch Diodoros has been given until Christmas Day to repent "in order to avoid a greater rift in the church" and, "in the hope that it will bring him to his senses."

Patriarch Diodoros made public penance for his acts and died in the communion of all the cannonical Orthodox Churches, so that probably the Ecumenical Patriarchte or better the Greater synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all the other Greek speaking patriarchates and autonomous autocephalic churches (no palestinian orthodox at the synod) had the right to excommunicate him or better to interrump their communion with him (akoinonisia and excommunio in Latin and Orthodx canon tradition are not the same thing)

Can any of you tell me why do I find myself, a Catholic of Latin backgrounds(my heart was always in the East), supporting the canonical rights of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate againts its "enemies" among traditional (uncannonical) Orthodoxs (generally speaking I am not calling anyone uncannonical Orthodox) in an Easter Catholic forum? Probably they consider both me and the Ecumenical Patriarch heretics, they tell me the same thing everytime I visit the Holy Mountain but I never know if I am a heretic becouse of being catholic or because I suppor the ecumenical Patriarchete, the strange in this story is that they post their oppinions (no problem with their right to express their oppinions whereever) in an "uniat" forum, which are supposed to be for these traditional Orthodox as the "most heretics among the heretics"? Anyway...

"I Constantinople Canon 3
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome."

Russia's stealing of autocephaly by kidnapping a Patriarch was pushy, I'll admit.

anastasios

anastasios

You may have interpreted my former words as saying I denied such. I am not. What I am saying though is he had primacy over these churches because he sent missionaries there, not **just** because he was Patriarch of Constantinople.

1922 was during the Russian civil war. Obviously Constantinople was taking advantage of the situation.


Of course. We were talking about the **Barbarians**, not the Orthodox, in our last exchange. You need to be more nuanced.


The Antiochian clergyman that were recieved by Jerusalem (some of whom were reordained due to their uncanonical first ordinations "en masse", something impossible in Orthodoxy) were received and reordained *with the assent of Patriarch Bartholemew* by the way (Jerusalem is trying to work more closely with the Patriarch of Constantinople after the rift of 1993.

I don't see why you are quoting this article. I already konw about this. I described it in detail above. Basically, you have the Patriarchate of Constantiople and bishops *under* him with the addition of the Patriarch of Alexandria (a small patriarchate totally dependent on Constantinople for financial support) threatening to excommunicate Jerusalem *which is impossible*. Either 1) all Patriarchs would have to break communion with Jerusalem or 2) a council would have to be called representing all patriarchates.

Here the article shows its ignorance. There is no way Chrysostomos II would establish links with Jerusalem, which he believes is not Orthodox. Two of his bishops in America, however, attempted to join Jerusalem *which would have been good* but Constantinople interfered, leaving them out in the cold and preventing a church union.

All Diodoros did in Greece was visit Met Cyprian's Church and celebrate Vespers. Not a "formal relationship."

anastasios

I am Eastern Catholic (for the time being) not a "traditionalist Orthodox".

When I become Orthodox it will be in one of the traditional Patriarchates (not in one of the so-called "schismatic" groups).

In addition, I have posted on this forum for a lot longer than you have--since 1999. I feel like you are suggesting to me that I somehow have no right or am being hypocritical for posting here.

anastasios

Dear Anton I
Yes! This has been the major point of contention from early on.
Rome, has always contested, Canon 28( I think that is the right canon), as to the position of the See of Constantinople.
As to the title "Oecumenical Patriarch" there is only one "Oecumenical Patriarch" namely the Pope of Rome. Now I know that this will draw alot of fire from the Orthodox, but it seems to me that the See of Constantinople has always tried to "aggrandize" itself over the other Patriarchs since it was made the new capital of the Empire.
( A great part in the division of East and West).

Stephanos I

When did Rome ever claim the title "Oecumenical patriararchate"? The oikoumene was the Roman Empire, and Constantinople, being the capital, was head of the oikoumene. This was especially clear after Rome fell to the barbarians.

Nowadays people try to make the word oikoumene mean "Christian world" or "all of the Christian Churches" which it did not mean back then.

Besides, the Popes in writing to the Patriarchs of Constantinople always use the title Oecumenical Patriarch" so why shouldn't we?

anastasios

Anastasios,

I was just wondering what you meant by "traditional Patriarchates".

I'm assuming that you are talking about jurisdictions, but wanted to check.

Any particular juridiction you have an eye on?

Are you worshipping with an Orthodox community right now, or do you still attend at a Byzantine Catholic church?

I apologize if my questions are of a personal nature. If the answers to those questions are something that you would prefer keep to yourself and you would rather not answer that is fine with me, I understand completely.

May God bless and keep you!

In Christ,
Aaron

The Patriarchal Church of Georgia and the Church of Kyprios (Cyprus) received their autocephaly not from Constantinople but rather from their own Mother Church .... The Patriarchate of Antioch and All The East. From a strictly historical perspective (not a pastorally functional one), the EP's adminstration of the Greek Orthodox in India and China (Hong Kong) is a usurping of Antioch's historical rights. The Oriental Orthodox in India clearly regard their background as "Syrian" and the Chinese (of course) had a wonderful and ancient Church that was founded by Nestorians. Now historical reality has to lead to a question, what is Rome and its Latin Rite (either directly or through Malabar Latinization) doing in India and China? The only historical reasons are "Universal Jurisdiction" and the superiority of the Ritus used daily by the only "Infallible Bishop".
Will Rome give India and China back to Antioch to foster the cause of Unity between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (and pull all of the Latin Missionaries, telling the Latins to become Eastern)? No way! Besides being a pastoral absurdity (which it certainly is), Rome will never admit that it had no historical or canonical business in the territory it recognized by Ecumencial Councils as under the Patriarchate of "All The East".

Just my (tongue-in-cheek) ... Three Cents.

Christ Is Among Us!

Dear Three Cents,

Historically speaking the title "patriarch of Antioch and all the East" has to do with the name of the Roman Diocese of the East, id est Syria, if I am not wrong. The Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East of the Jacobites (rather pre-Calcedonins) has kept its rigths over the Syrian Orthodox Church of Kerala (India), although historically speaking this Church have strong historical
links with the Church of the East (the East beyond the East, beyond the borders of the Christian Empire, id est the Assyrians, also called Nestorians) and consider Saint Thomas their common enlighter. I do not know if the Orthodox patriarchate of Antioch is interested at all in claiming jurisdiction over India (or rather only over Kerala ) if possible. That was with the precalcedonians that they came in communion and not the Orthodox. If I am not wrong the Church of Georgia you talk about had its ancient and venerable autonomy uncannonicaly suspended by the Patriarchate of Moscow. Things are really complicated...