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

Dear Anastasios,

I am also an old member of this forum although I have a long time to post in it so that I was very very careful in my last post using expressions like "generally speaking" or "no problem with their right to express their oppinions whereever", because in fact that not the first time I write about this topic in this forum.

I do not agree with your theory, that is, that Constantinople had jurisdictions over these churches because he sent missionaries there. Constantinople had jurisdiction because the canons of the Forth Ecumenical Council give to Constantinople the right to send missionaries there and to put these peoples under its jurisdiction. These are two enterely different things.

From your post you seem to support (you seem to support I am not saying that you in fact support) Russian eternal and almost holy political and religious rights over the Estonian lands. Although Spanish I would never support the eternal and holy political and spiritual rights of Spain over America (God forbid) and the Philipines. Our ancestrors gave them the light of the Gospel (and took their gold, by the way) but Spain would never claim today ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them. That would be completelly ridiculous. If some people claim Russian jurisdiction over whole America because they were the first Orthodox to arive there, that is their problem, I still consider it ridiculous.

About the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the Greek lands (by the way "holy" Russia also tryed to put under its jurisdiction the Holy Mountain, but unfortunately Tzar monks-agents put fire the Russian Monastery during the Revolution and the plans to make the Holy Montain Russian Land also disappear with the fire) I was trying to prove that the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not within the borders of Asia, Pondus and Thrace and the "βάρβαρα έθνη" as in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils.

About reordinations and ordinations in masse. The fact that, if I am not wrong, some formerly protestan clergy were ordained in masse in the Antiochian Archdiocese, that's something that has to do with Orthodox canonical tradition (there is no canon of Ecumenical Council forbidding it clearly), can not be considered and obstacle to consider these ordinations enterely valids and probably enterely canonical and legals. The reordinations were in fact uncanonical and with no sacramental velidity. According to this theory even the frist martyr and archdeacon Steven should be reordained deacon because he was ordained with other 6 candidates in the same celebration and the apostle were not wearing their homoforia. Come on, please!

If you can not see that the erection of another altar (πήξις ετέρου θυσιαστηρίου)by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem in the jurisdiction of other churches (the fact that Alexandria is economically dependent of Constantinople, something I do not believe, does not gave the Patriarchate of Jerusalem the right of proselytism faithful of the Patriarchate of Alexandria) is not uncannonical, probably I am loosing my time posting in this forum.

Good luck in your new way in the Orthodoxy, by the way have you asked if you will be received in one of these traditioanl jurisdictions by the anoitment with Holy Myron (according to the canons of the councils about the reception of heretics), by baptism (only heretics that do not believe in the Holy Trinity according to the canons, Catholics are regarded as such by many of these traditional and not so traditional jurisdictions) or by penance and profession of faith (Moscow Patriarchate)? If you find unproper or offensive my question, please, forgive me and forget it.

Francisco,

I don't support Russia over Constantinople. My anger was over parallel jurisdictions being set up in a place which has a traditionally-Orthodox population (America is different, I think everyone who has emmigrants in America has a right to minister to them). If the Estonian Church needs to/wants to/demands to become autonomous, I would say let it happen under the auspices of the Moscow Patriarchate.

I dispute still that Jerusalem is setting up new altars in others' jurisdiction. Having fraternal relations with Metropolitan Cyprian is not setting up communion with him. Setting up a Church in America (Jerusalem was in America before Constantinople was, btw; in 1930 Jerusalem left voluntarily) for its emmigrants is not setting up an altar against an altar if there was a pastoral necessity. Jerusalem is not going into Greece and making a bishop there--that would be setting up an altar against an altar.

I will be received into Orthodoxy as my bishop requires, so I am not sure how that will be yet.

Have a blessed day,

anastasios

Dear Father Stephanos and Anastasios,

I think I see it from both of your perspectives.

The title "oecumenical patriarch" is the official title given to the patriarch of Constantinople. But there is an inherent implication that this is due to the fact that the patriarch of Constantinople is responsible for maintaining the unity of the EAST. Thus, among EASTERNS, the patriarch of Constantinople is the "oecumenical patriarch."

However, in terms of ALL of Christendom, not the title, but the FUNCTION of "oecumenical patriarch" belongs to the Pope of Rome - ideally.

From my OO perspective, it is kind of confusing. The OO, or non-Chalcedonian Christians, convoked our own council in the 5th century, and reasserted the Nicene canon over against Constantinople that the See of Alexandria is second after Rome. In the current state of things, of course, the OO believe that we are the TRUE Orthodoxy, not the EO, not the CC (I'm just stating the official position of my Church, not necessarily what I believe). If the CC ever "came back to Orthodoxy," Rome would be first again, and hence would function as the "oecumenical patriarch" even if he does not have that title. I am not sure where this puts Constantinople, because we recognize that one of the great Patriarchates of the Chalcedonians (namely, Rome) NEVER accepted the particular canon of Constantinople and Chalcedon that set Constantinople above Alexandria. Thus, that Canon is NOT binding at all, and should not be even from the Chalcedonian perspective.

Theotokos, pray for our unity.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

The Catholic Church does accept the place of Constantinople as second to Rome and codified this in the Code of Canons of Eastern Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

Thank you for the correction! However, it would not seem to change matters from the OO, particularly the CO, perspective since that state of affairs occurred after the Chalcedon incident. The standard of the Oriental Orthodox/ Coptic Orthodox is still Nicea.

I never thought of this particular circumstance before. This might - MIGHT, not for certain - delay my move to be in communion with Rome a bit longer. I have to pray about it. Please pray for me! (I realize it is only a canonical issue and should not be a REALLY big deal...) I do not know if I can accept Constantinople as being over Alexandria. A serious question - if I come into the Catholic communion, can I claim invincible ignorance?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

If it is any consolation there is no Catholic patriarch in Constantinople, so in fact the Copitc Catholic Patriach is next in honor after the Pope of Rome in the Catholic Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance

PS Claim away.

Father Deacon Lance,

Could you give a reference to the specific canon that says this?

Thanks,
Jason

Fr. Deacon Lance:

Is Rome's recognition of Constantinople as having second place in honor the result of Vatican II and ecumenical outreach?

I was taught that Rome had specifically refused to ratify the canons of the Councils that made Constantinople the second in honor during the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and that that refusal was one of the things that started the animosity that became the Schism. I had also been taught that Rome had never formally ratified those canons even to the present day.

In Christ,

BOB

Check Byzantium & the Roman Primacy @

www.praiseofglory.com/dvornik.htm [praiseofglory.com]


james

Dear Anastasios,

Well definively we two do not seem to agree about who wants to erect altars in other's people jurisdiction. In you last post you quite cleverly avoid to answer to a difficult problem, the canonical consideration of re-ordiantions and ana-pbaptism. Obviously the problem of how someone becomes Orthodox is a personal problem although it also concerns the Church this person formerly belonged and the Church in which he or she will be received. The canonicity of re-ordinations and anabaptism (baptism of heretics if you prefer) is an non meaningless problem in nowdays ecumenical relationships and in such a discusion abot more or less Orthodox, more or less traditional, more or less faithful to the canons Orthodox jurisdictions. Personally although I can acept the fact that a Catholic becomes Orthodox I will never acept the fact that former Catholics are received in the Orthodox Church by a new baptim. Why? Just because it would mean that my own in Christ life is a lie, that I am not a Christian. I can not deny my experience of Christ. I can not admit that what I feel when I receive Holy Communion at the Catholic Church is just a lie. How could I admit to be re baptized when I feel at every moment of my life member of Christ's mystical body.

Que el Senyor Jesus (si he leido tu mensaje, y yo tambien me acaloro al expresar mis ideas) te ilumine y te guie por las sendas de su voluntad y te dirija hacia la verdad plena y que tu alma encuentre la verdadera paz que seguramente anhela.

God bless you,
Fr

Jason,

Canon 59-�2. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Interesting.

Thanks,
Jason

Bob,

I am unsure. It would seem that for a long time Rome accepted Constantinople as second in honor de facto if not de iure. In compiling the CCEO, the colections of Canons from the Eastern Churches were used as the fonts so it seems to me just a recognition of what the Church has always followed.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Rome did ratify the "offending" parts of the councils at the Lateran Council in 1215.

Cizinec,

You are correct.

CANON 5
Summary. The council approves the existing order of the patriarchal sees and affirm, three of their privileges: their bishops may confer the pallium and may have the cross borne before them, and appeals may be taken to them.

Text. Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree with the approval of the holy and ecumenical council, that after the Roman Church, which by the will of God holds over all others pre-eminence of ordinary power as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, that of Constantinople shall hold first place, that of Alexandria second, that of Antioch third, and that of Jerusalem fourth, the dignity proper to each to be observed; so that after their bishops have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the distinguishing mark of the plenitude of the pontifical office, and have taken the oath of fidelity and obedience to him, they may also lawfully bestow the pallium upon their suffragans, receiving from them the canonical profession of faith for themselves, and for the Roman Church the pledge of obedience. They may have the standard of the cross borne before them everywhere, except in the city of Rome and wherever the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of Apostolic dignity is present. In all provinces subject to their jurisdiction appeals may be taken to them when necessary, saving the appeals directed to the Apostolic See, which must be humbly respected.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.html