www.byzcath.org
In reviewing the different websites and postings concerning the current tumultuous situation that is going on in the UK Orthodox Churches, I came across this article that was posted. I think it may be of interest to some of our different posters.

Ecumenical Patriarch denounces "Third Rome" theory [portal-credo.ru]

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Father Anthony,

This is a fascinating article! Thank you for posting it. Clearly the issues between Constantinople and Moscow have been brewing for ceturies, but they appear to be coming to a head again. I pray for peace between these churches...

Gordo
Bless, Father Anthony!

I remember when Pope John Paul II himself referred to Moscow as "a Third Rome" early in his pontificate. And I remember how a lot of our people weren't happy with that.

Orthodox Kyiv, on the other hand, was sometimes called the "New Jerusalem" and there is a monastery there with that name.

I do believe that His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has an important international role to fulfill within Orthodoxy and Orthodoxy's relations to Christendom and the world.

Many years to His All-Holiness!

Alex
It's funny: both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow accuse each other of wanting to be the "Pope of Orthodoxy"!

I'll say "Amen" to Gordo's prayer for peace!

Dave
Prayers for all the squabbling of egos to end.

Perhaps when brothers reconcile with the estranged elder brother, the peace and harmony of the spirit and heart, which can only come from God, will prevail in His Church. We cannot preach what we don't practice. Just a thought.....

Praying for unity of God's church,
and peace and brotherhood in the Orthodox world,
Alice
I find the following by our Patriarch Bartolomew quite humorous, especially considering that the Patriarch of Constantinople was always under the head of the Eastern Roman Empire. confused

Quote
"the Russian government, Patriarch Bartholomew stated: "The gathering together of Orthodox faithful into one flock under the leadership of a single powerful leader, who would be carrying out the agenda of a particular government, will unavoidably lead the Church into becoming nothing more than an organ of that government, and not the means by which mankind achieves salvation."
But then again there is truth to it, when we consider the state of the RCC at Avignon. :rolleyes:

I can only hope and pray, that this friction will lead one Church or the other, closer to Rome. God works in mysterious ways. wink

Zenovia
I post this with all respect to my Orthodox brethren, and if with my words anybody is offended I offer my apologies.

We all know that the primacy of Rome and of Constantinople was agreed in the Ecumenical Councils... isn't the Moscow Patriarchate statements indeed an offense to the spirit of charity and synodality that is traditional to the Orthodox Church?

"The Russian Orthodox Church holds the de facto first place among all of the other Orthodox Churches because of her great spirituality, her ethics and virtues, her tradition, and her political influence; as such, she speaks for the over 350 million Russians throughout the world. Moreover, she exercises influence in all of the Orthodox Churches of the Balkans, as well as in those countries where the Orthodox faithful represent a minority. We are the rightful spiritual heirs of Byzantium."

I find this statement quite arrogant, I mean wasn't the tradition they speak of delivered from Constantinople? Are we not, all Orthodox who follow the Byzantine Rite as well as Byzantine Catholics, spiritual heirs of Constantinople and therefore owe honor and respect to the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

I find this situation very delicate. God have mercy. I add my prayers for all my Orthodox brethren, and pray for humility and charity among all the Apostolic Churches so we may be One again.

God bless
That's why you don't play around with primacies... You just give one to the Pope and that's it! No New or Newer Romes....
Quote
Originally posted by Armando:
That's why you don't play around with primacies... You just give one to the Pope and that's it! No New or Newer Romes....
Armando,

I have to say that this is probably the cutest thing you have ever said. smile

Thanks-- You gave me a much needed smile and chuckle today.... cool

In agreement,
Alice
Dear Alice,

Can you give Armando some pointers on dating?

I am very much afraid he is going to start talking to that girl about the papacy . . . wink

Can you do something with him?

Alex
Dear Friends,

What the Patriarch of Moscow states in the article is nothing new - the Russian Tsars have believed this for centuries.

As for the ROC's "spirituality and ethics" - these are well known to the victims of Russian imperial AND ecclesial colonialism.

I don't want to say anthing further about Moscow though . . . I know it annoys the Administrator to no end . . . he once said I was "anti-Russian," you know wink .

And when I mentioned this in confession, that I was anti-Russian, the priest hearing my confession began to clap out loud . . . it was quite embarrassing! smile

I can think of worse things to be called! smile smile

Da?

Alex
Oh, I used to but I learned my lesson... smile
I have already given another tip about the girl I am interested in right now but I will give another one somewhere in this post.

Anyway, the last thing we would want is a split within Orthodoxy. I can only pray everything goes as plan....

Tamam?

P.S: When I said plan, I meant God's plan...
Quote
Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
Dear Alice,

Can you give Armando some pointers on dating?

I am very much afraid he is going to start talking to that girl about the papacy . . . wink

Alex
Yes, that could definitely be considered a turn off on the first date!!! eek
I would say that a man should wait atleast one year before hitting a woman over the head with the error of her heretical ways! wink

Alice smile
Dear Alice,

Surely, you mean "schismatic?" smile smile smile

And I hope Armando doesn't turn her off by any ecumenical talk like "my beloved Orthodox sister."

When I was dating, I was so into all this that I tried to get my girl-friend to wear a scapular.

She told me to keep my hands to myself . . .

Alex
Quote
And I hope Armando doesn't turn her off by any ecumenical talk like "my beloved Orthodox sister."
LOL! biggrin

**********************************************

*We love you Armando. smile Please accept our teasing with each other, and with you, in the spirit it is meant, and that spirit is pure love and affection!
Where else in the world could you possibly get such diverse and good natured humour from a Ukrainian Catholic from Canada and a Greek Orthodox from the U.S.?!? :p

All the best always,
Alice
Of course... smile I don't mind.
Anyway, she's not Orthodox or Protestant either...
So, I cannot call her My orthodox or protestant sister...
(admin, I do not imply that Orthodoxy is the same as protestantism, I just imply that of the 3 major branches of Christianity, we already excluded the chances of her being Catholic so the last 2 were left and those are now excluded by what I said on this post...)
I would look at this from the pragmatic level from two standpoints.

The first is that even if the idea of a �third Rome� was still entertained in Russia, for all practical purposes it would not mean a lot. The reason I believe is that the Russian hierarchy would not be interested in overseeing a transnational or multicultural church. I think primarily they are interested in the serving and forwarding the interests of Russians, both at home and abroad. That is not a criticism, it is just my feeling as to what their perspective is.

The second stand point is that Metropolitan Kyrill does have a point. Due to its size and influence the Russian Church I have to say does have a de facto place of pre-eminence in the Orthodox world. The Ecumenical Patriarch, though it pains me to say it, is a fish in shrinking pool. It is honestly not inconceivable to me that the Patriarchate will have to vacate the Queen City within a generation.

Andrew
Quote
Originally posted by Chtec:
It's funny: both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow accuse each other of wanting to be the "Pope of Orthodoxy"!

I'll say "Amen" to Gordo's prayer for peace!

Dave
The best way for both Patriarchs to defuse this argument is to agree that someone else should be the "Pope of Orthodoxy". wink
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Orthodox hierarchs, theologians, clergy and faithful say "we need a Pope!".

There is one, and he is available. One Pope is a blessing; two at the same time is a curse (it has happened and it's no fun at all).

Those who have read the writings of Vladimir Soloviov will remember his prediction of a breach in communion between Constantinople and Moscow. Fasten your seat belts; we may be in for a bumpy ride.

Incognitus
Quote
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard Orthodox hierarchs, theologians, clergy and faithful say "we need a Pope!".

There is one, and he is available. One Pope is a blessing; two at the same time is a curse (it has happened and it's no fun at all).

Those who have read the writings of Vladimir Soloviov will remember his prediction of a breach in communion between Constantinople and Moscow. Fasten your seat belts; we may be in for a bumpy ride.

Incognitus
Turbulence is never pleasant. frown

I will fasten my seat belt though! smile

Alice
Dear Andrew you said:

Quote
It is honestly not inconceivable to me that the Patriarchate will have to vacate the Queen City within a generation.
I say:

Turkey has just that intention. It requires Turkish citizenship for the Patriarch, yet has conveniently ethnically cleansed all the Greek Orthodox, and at the same time, refuses to open the theological school at Halki. mad

Well, there will be no one to take Patriarch Bartolomew's place, although there are Turkish speaking Orthodox, (no one know's where they came from, although two theories exist). One is that they were originally Turks that had contact with the Byzantine Empire and became Christian, and the other is that they were Orthodox, that eventually adopted the Turkish language. confused

Then again, there is the Bulgarian bishop, But the Turks say that the Patriarch is only the bishop for the Greek speaking people in Turkey, so it seems that the Patriarch will cease to exist...in Turkey at least. Then again, isn't that what Turkey wants? :rolleyes:

But let's not dispair. We do not know what God has in store. smile

Zenovia
How sad! Where would the Patriarch of Constantinople go? The US?

Remember Avignon...

Gordo
Gordo,

Actually this is not a new matter. A number of places have been suggested in the event that the patriarchate must leave Constantinople, including the patriarchal complex in Chambessy Switzerland.

I guess a determination would be made when the time is right.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Imagine what a blessing it would be to have our Ecumenical Patriarch here in the United States!
Quote
Originally posted by JohnS.:
Imagine what a blessing it would be to have our Ecumenical Patriarch here in the United States!
I recall with what filial devotion the late Archbishop Joseph Raya regarded the Ecumenical Patriarch. As the bishop to the see of Constantinople - the Mother Church of Byzantium - he is, after all, the spiritual father of all Byzantine Christians, including all Byzantine Catholics as well as the Patriarch of Moscow. Most recently, I have begun to commemorate him in my prayers after Pope Benedict and before our own Metropolitan Archbishop. I pray for the day that such prayers can be offered for our Ecumenical Patriarch in all our churches!

As an aside, not many may know that Mundelein Seminary in Libertyville was designated as the residence in exile for Pope Pius XII should the Nazi occupation of Rome threaten His Holiness's ability to lead the church and/or his life. Fortunately for many, including the Jews he helped to save, Pope Pius remained in Rome for the duration of the conflict.

May God bless our Ecumenical Patriarch!

Gordo biggrin
Since no one is expelling the Ecumenical Patriarch from Constantinople at the immediate moment, ideas as to where he might go are in the realm of speculation. With that caveat, here are a few possibilities:

Chambesy - well, not perhaps the best solution, because the Patriarch would once again find himself with a very small flock. Possible, though.

New York - interesting. I take it for granted that if the Ecumenical Patriarch took up residence in the USA the jurisdictional problem in the USA would collapse.

Rhodes - well, it is unquestionably his, and it is outside of Turkey. Getting to or from Rhodes might be a bit of a nuisance, but nothing major against it.

Thessaloniki - now there's an interesting idea. As Bartholomew has recently made clear, this is also a territory which belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and which has a long connection to Constantinople - in fact to Byzantium, if I may make such a distinction. It also has a Patriarchal Monastery and Institute (Vlatadon). Getting down to brass tacks, it has a major international airport and other modern necessities of life - and I'm confident that the city fathers, whoever they may be, can grasp the point that having their city as the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarch might be very good for Thessaloniki. Whether the Church of Greece would share their happiness is a different question.

On the other hand (said Incognitus, still speculating) there is an unpleasant consideration back in Constantinople: the "Turkish Orthodox Church" still maintains a shadowy existence, complete with "Patriarch". I would not put it past the Turkish government to announce that an Ecumenical Patriarch who left Constantinople more-or-less permanently had thereby resigned - and then installing this Turkish "Patriarch-in-waiting" in the Phanar, in hopes of causing more chaos in the Orthodox world.

Incognitus
The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the First among Equals. He is not a Pope and he is not the "head of the Turkish church". Specially the last one must be one of the most discusting things that I have read. The Patriarch of Constantinople is there for about 17 centuries so these discussions about leaving from Constantinople have nothing to do with reality. And he is the Universal Patriarch. The one for all christians around the world. The patriarch of Russia (and all the other patriarchs) is what his title simply says. For the Russians. Nothing wrong with that but we must not mess these things because the Russians are so many. After all from where did the Russians, and all the other orthodox christians, learned about their religion? That's right. from the Byzantine Empire (or the Eastern Roman Empire, if you prefer). And to conclude, there is no such thing as the "third rome". There was the Rome. And the new Rome, Constantinople, build over the ancient Greek city of Vyzantium by Constantine. And because it was the new capital of the Roman Empire it was called the New Rome.
If the Turks go after him, Patriarch Bartholomew can come and live at my house! biggrin
Quote
Originally posted by Two Lungs:
Quote
Originally posted by Chtec:
[b] It's funny: both the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow accuse each other of wanting to be the "Pope of Orthodoxy"!

I'll say "Amen" to Gordo's prayer for peace!

Dave
The best way for both Patriarchs to defuse this argument is to agree that someone else should be the "Pope of Orthodoxy". wink [/b]
I whole heartedly agree!!! biggrin
Kyiv! It could use another good Patriarch!
I am confused,

He is Patriarch of Constantinople, only while he is there, married to the City. If he left the city, (for any other), wouldn't he cease to be the Patriarch of Constantinople? He would be a 'retired' bishop?

His rank among bishops has to do with the rank of the city, not his personal right, and I wouldn't have thought that it is transferable to another city.

Elias
Father Elias,

I believe the Popes, when they moved to Avignon, France, were still the Bishops of Rome.

Dr. Eric
Quote
Originally posted by Hieromonk Elias:
I am confused,

His rank among bishops has to do with the rank of the city, not his personal right, and I wouldn't have thought that it is transferable to another city.

Elias
Father Elias,

I would like to bring up the example of the Patriarch of Antioch. He has not resided or used that city in a number of centuries as either his residence or cathedra. Instead his cathedra and residence is in Damascus, Syria.

I hope this helps.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
I believe that the Latin Church has something similar with its appointment of auxillary bishops. Are they not made bishops of ancient dioceses which have no relationship with the diocese they serve as auxillary?... as a way of maintaining (as far as legal fiction is concerned) the idea of one bishop per territory?

My point being that it seems that a Bishop can have his See (and even vacate his See) and yet still be the Bishop of that See. Just as His Grace, Bishop William of Van Nys lives in Arizona and not California.
Quote
Originally posted by Zenovia:
Turkey has just that intention. It requires Turkish citizenship for the Patriarch, yet has conveniently ethnically cleansed all the Greek Orthodox, and at the same time, refuses to open the theological school at Halki. mad
This is the real difficulty of the situation. The Patriarch must be a Turkish citizen, meaning among other things he must serve in the Turkish military IIRC. The population exchange and the exodus after the riots in the 50's have left almost no Greeks in Turkey. The only working seminary remains closed. All of that spells death for the Patriarchate in the city. I know some people hold out hope that the EU will make things better, but I don't hold out hope in that regard.

I think the most difficult thing to contemplate is that I don't think the Turks will allow many of the holdings of the Patriarchate to leave the country should it ever need to.

Quote
Well, there will be no one to take Patriarch Bartolomew's place, although there are Turkish speaking Orthodox, (no one know's where they came from, although two theories exist). One is that they were originally Turks that had contact with the Byzantine Empire and became Christian, and the other is that they were Orthodox, that eventually adopted the Turkish language.
I have heard it theorized that there are Karamanlides that remained and pretend to be Muslims. If that's true, or how many, I would guess is impossible to say. You couldn't look at that as a possible wellspring of life for the church unless the climate of hostility to Christian minorities in Turkey changed. There is no sign that is the case.

Andrew
© The Byzantine Forum