October 21, 2015 Length: 52:42
In this special edition of Ancient Faith Today, the Very Rev Fr Patrick O’Grady of St Peter the Apostle Antiochian Orthodox Church in Pomona, California, represents the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America in explaining the reasons behind its recent statement at the 6th Assembly of Bishops and why it appeared to many that its long-held support of Orthodox administrative unity has changed.
Listen here:
[audio:http://audio.ancientfaith.com/aftoday/aft_2015-10-21.mp3]
When I e-mailed this link to the parishioners at All Saints, I added the following note:
I recommend this presentation of current Antiochian policy with respect to Orthodox jurisdictional quest in this country.
I called the speaker, Father Patrick O’Grady, to comment that our Archdiocese has now adopted a policy I have advocated for years! The presentation is very gratifying.
All Saints is a congregation largely composed of adult converts and their children (and, more recently, their grandchildren), along with a growing number of immigrant Christians who have deliberately chosen our parish instead of the local ethnic parishes.
In 1993 Antioch alone provided a catholic home for this congregation, and I despair at the suggestion that any but an Antiochian bishop could adequately pastor it..
All of us at All Saints rejoice at the current policy of Metropolitan JOSEPH.
“I despair at the suggestion that any but an Antiochian bishop could adequately pastor it.”
Ethnophyletism spelled out for us in plain-text format. This is exactly the attitude that has been holding up unity for decades.
“Only a Russian could ever…”
“Only an Antiochian can possibly…”
“Only a Greek knows how to …”
Really? In 21st-Century America?
I respect your work, Fr. Patrick, I really do. And I know you have a sincere heart for the witness of the Church in this country. So why don’t you see the value of a united Orthodoxy? All your comments on this site express satisfaction with an American Orthodoxy divided down ethnic lines.
Those of us who are part of the new generation of Orthodox laity utterly reject this outdated nonsense. Orthodoxy has been in America for 200 years. As Mr. Allen pointed out, we have numerous seminaries and theological programs, media outlets, humanitarian aid programs, youth formation opportunities, etc, etc, etc. When will we be ready? Please answer this question for the sake of those reading.
Let me add that I understand the dangers of unity given the politics at play among the jurisdictions in this country. But neither I nor the new generation of Orthodox in this country think this a reason to cower in fear. We see the path to American Orthodox unity and the goods to come of it, and we are ready.
We have reached the point where an Irish-American, who argues his preference for Middle Eastern pastoral care, is accused of blatant Ethnophyletism.
As to the question, “When will we be ready? Please answer this question for the sake of those reading,” I have no idea. I’m just the pastor of a congregation, not a prophet.
I doubt the wisdom, however, if those theorists who think they know the needs of the Church better than those of us charged with pastoring it.
Through the ministry of Bishop ANTHONY, the Apostolic See of Antioch is providing marvelous oversight of my little congregation in Chicago.
I have no interest in some grand scheme that would sacrifice that beneficent oversight in order to conform, slavishly, to some ancient and inapplicable canon.
And after the esteemed Bishop Anthony has passed on to his eternal reward, do you still “despair at the suggestion that any but an Antiochian bishop could adequately pastor it”?
Maybe they’ll install an Irishman. Non mihi refert.
I’m Irish too…and part of the Antiochian Archdiocese. Your ethnicity is a red herring as regards the opinions you are espousing. Personally, I include several non-Antiochian priests and bishops on my list of friends and prelates that I respect. I have no doubt many of these would be perfectly capable of presiding in your town, regardless of their skin color.
The wisdom of these “theorists,” father, is that they care about the unity of the Church. Don’t you?
Ethnophylitism is shown more in the belief that only an “American” church under “American” direction can serve “American” needs. That is a lie especially when coupled with the myth of progress displayed in the “in the 21st century” nonsense. America has shown itself unable to produce anything consistently over time except money and chaos.
Wake up. “American” is not an ethnicity.
It makes sense historically, canonically, culturally, and even pragmatically to have geographic locations governed by (go figure!!!) the ACTUAL bishops over those locations, one in each diocese.
Your final sentence is the cherry on top. “America has shown itself unable to produce anything consistently over time except money and chaos.” As if we have something else in the old country! Minus the money, of course. But the greed is still there.
It sounds like you have a very naive and idealistic understanding of this whole situation.
Let me also add that I agree with all your negative comments about America. I just think we should be in charge of our own mess over here, so we can at least begin the holy labor of fixing it.
Jacob-have you considered the downside risk of your wish?
It is bigger than you think. if tomorrow all the churches in the twin cities were placed under one bishop, what would be the first thing to happen?
Disenfranchisement.
Followed by rules changes to ‘improve’ continuity.
Followed by more disenfranchisement.
Then a tiny church would ask for help and get none and die instead of eeking it out.
I don’t think you have thought through the negatives or downside risks associated with meeting 28.
Also, the reasons for 28 have been mitigated today through modern technology. Even the telephone.
A lot has changed since 451 A.D., and even the reasons for 28.
I would recommend you read the essay written by Metropolitan Philip Saliba(of blessed memory I believe is appropriate) in early June of 2008. George’s link is dead, but Orthodoxytoday.org has it.
I’m sorry, but 28 never made sense in these United States and still does not.
I am no fan of foreign rule, but my argument against one bishop one city rule is pretty close to the same argument someone for foreign rule could use. i.e. Email works
When you consider an American Patriarch, it seems kind of right. But how often is that discussed by the EP? And can you imagine the battle?
I think the gains are few, risk great, and all to serve an outdated dogma.
When the EP demands an American Patriarch, who would that be?
What is your reason for wanting to meet 28?
I see no reason for unity.
Jurisdiction hopping happens sure, but there is a risk of shrink under a one city one bishop plan.
The only thing I find to be bad is foreign leaders and even that is not terrible.
A rule unfollowed for a hundred years is no longer a rule.
St. Raphael of Brooklyn was a Russian Bishop who called the Antiochian faithful to unity under the omophorion of St. Tikhon and the Russian American mission as the “sole canonical Orthodox body on these shores” and condemned schism and separation from it. That body exists today as the OCA and not the Antiochian Archdiocese and certainly not the AHEPA renovationist GOA/EP.
Although the AOA has taken a significant step forward with the election of +Metropolitan Joseph and I wish him many years, I wish for Antioch two things: 1). To rid itself of pew and organ, papal lounge suit renovationism with beardless bishops toiling to find sophistries in contrived akriveias attempting to rationalize their flight from orthopraxis (Orthodox akriveia which condemns their very appearance and lack of monastic sobriety) and empowering schismatic mentalities either in a Western Rite mission gone off the reservation or with renovationist hacks thumbing their noses at the orthopraxis of almost all Orthodox local churches calling it “fundamentalism.” Renovationist sectarianism is rampant and needs to be dealt with & ceased. 2). Constructive and CONSTITUENT unity with the canonical North American local church once these issues are resolved as a separate Metropolia which can retain an authentic Antiochian character and even commemorate your patriarch if you wish.
Father, with all due respect, when papal Archbishop Raya is a more faithful representative of Antiochian piety and spirituality than the powers that be who have heretofore formed your archdiocese, that does not speak well of what you have done of its sobriety in an Orthodox sense.
Michael Warren! St Raphael (Hawaweeny) was not Russian. He was an Antiochian who went to seminary in Russia. He became a Bishop of the Syrian mission of the Russian Missionary Archdiocese.
He was a Syrian who was a Bishop of the Russian Orthodox church, Vladyko. Not Antiochian as there was no Antiochian Archdiocese. He was under the omophorion of the Russian Orthodox church, functioning as a Bishop in the Russian American mission calling his Syrian faithful to unity with it.
I was troubled when Met. Joseph made his statement, but after hearing this, it would seem this is for the best. Unity must grow up organically. It cannot be imposed.
Perhaps if the Ecumenical Patriarchate wants to be first, it should learn to be the servant of all. (For one thing, that means helping Antioch and Jerusalem work out their differences instead of refusing to get involved. For another thing, that means occasionally taking the last seat rather than the first.)
So what do we do? Ligonier ’94 was about as organic as you are going to get. That was squashed by His All Holiness. Then we get the Chambessy process to which the 14 primates sign on; and now we are back to organic. Here we go ’round the mulberry bush… Ashes, ashes we all fall down.
What the heck was Fr. Patrick saying? I couldn’t make any sense out of it. His thought process was all over the place and what “facts” he did state were actually somewhat incorrect. For instance, he stated that the autocephalous churches did not lose their ties with the mother churches. Huh? Wasn’t that the point of autocephaly?
There are some very real issues that need to be resolved such as language and liturgical practices before the Orthodox Church in America can come together. However, this interview with Fr. Patrick belongs in the garbage can. It is beyond tedious and it is simply painful to listen to. I hope Metropolitan Joseph can pick someone who is a bit more to the point in the future when it comes to speaking on behalf of the national church.
This was a great interview. Antioch is right to reject paper unity. Up to that point, the process had been mostly self-serving on the part of Istanbul. As we continue our inter-Orthodox collaboration, perhaps in time a true organic unity will emerge.
RE: “. . . he stated that the autocephalous churches did not lose their ties with the mother churches. Huh? Wasn’t that the point of autocephaly?”
Losing ties with the mother Churches was never the point of autocephaly. Autocephalous means not subject to the authority of an external patriarch or archbishop.
My daughter is 23. She is not subject to my authority. She makes her own decisions. However, she is not an island into herself. She has been shaped by my values. She will likely teach her children what I have taught her. She chooses to remain connected to me out of love and respect, not obligation. No matter how old she gets, I will always be her mother; the one who provided the context from which she emerged. – The same relationships exist within the Church.
To interpret autocephaly the way you’re thinking of it would be more like an amputation. The severed limb would die.
Great post Gail
To say, as Nick did, that Father Patrick O’Grady was “all over the place” is something on the order of saying a champion short stop was “all over the place.”
Father O’Grady was not delivering a coherently designed lecture; he was fielding questions.
Kevin Allen, who was manifestly unsympathetic to Father O’Grady’s position, was an energetic interviewer; he batted a series of deftly directed questions, trying to get the ball past him and into the outfield.
In my opinion, Father O’Grady had a golden glove.
Nick–I am with you. Buried in the diplo-babble there were statements that made sense. I am going to quote those for the benefit of the poor souls who have to wade through this interview.
“Metr. Joseph is still committed to advancing the cause of Orthodox unity in this country. I think it’s very important to stress what unity is. Unity is, as St. Paul speaks, it is speaking the truth in love. Unity cannot exist only on an organizational or exterior or jurisdictional, institutional framework, but it has to be developed from very deep and abiding commitments on the part of all of the people involved.”
“…the subsuming of the Church of Constantinople of the role of primacy of honor—this is well-accepted and understood—since Rome left our company a long time ago. So Constantinople, as second in honor, presides in honor.
However, this is not primacy of jurisdiction outside the territories of the Old World churches, and this is the problem here. The Episcopal Assembly seems to be governed by a kind of innovative interpretation of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod’s 28th canon. We reject this interpretation… In short, the Church of Constantinople cannot impose universal jurisdiction over the Orthodox in this country. If that’s going to be the agenda, we have no way forward.”
“The chief obstacle to unity in this land is a lack of seriousness about it, according to the canonical terms. The horse goes before the cart: first the values, then the structure. All the Orthodox have an authentic part in forming this effective unity, not just one church. That is to say, unity is not based upon one outmoded culture, however romantic a view of that by-gone culture, or by an innovative or extreme interpretation of the canons, such as Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Our new Metropolitan Joseph insists on speaking the truth in love, to use St. Paul’s beautiful words, and the Episcopal Assembly, as it is now operating—notice I say “operating,” not as it’s constituted to operate—it cannot succeed, because it is not an arena of mutual respect and equality among the hierarchs. This must be fixed. When one church insists on dominating the agenda and the proceedings, no possible way forward remains toward authentic Orthodox confraternity and its resultant unity. Unity begins with confraternity and mutual respect. This is the position of our Metr. Joseph.”
Unity is God’s will not a matter of cannon law or jurisdictional or patriarchal squabbles. Simply put, rejection of unity is rejection of the will of God as expressed in the 17th chapter of the Gospel of John. The Orthodox Church is and continues to function in direct disobedience to the will of God. Submission to God’s will is the issue. Once the church submits, issues will be resolved by grace rather than human negotiation and man’s reason. Repentance is the answer not negotiation.
Spoken like a Latin ecumenist. “Communion first, and the doctrine will sort itself out.”
We have communion in the chalice already. This is all a historical accident, not a malicious affront to God. The question now is how to fix the problem. We don’t fix it by bullying, which is what the EP is trying to do.
Re: John 17
I think that our Lord meant that his disciples were to be of one faith, with a common divine way of life and having nothing less than total brotherly love for one another. Unity in the Orthodox Christian sense is far more profound than consolidated administrative apparatus.
Are we not called to have apostolic unity–to be of one faith? Are we not His disciples today? Your statement suggests that the Church of the NT is different from the Church of today.
My statement above implied no such thing. Our Holy Orthodox Church is the mature NT Testament Church. While the outward form of the Church may differ between now and then, the essence is the same. Changing circumstances may lead to a change in the outward expression of the same apostolic faith.
While the current situation may not be “correct” it nevertheless enables the Church to minister effectively to people of diverse cultures and languages. One day of jurisdictions will merge but we are not there yet.
I fear that this unity-at-all-costs attitude is the new ‘Old Calendarism’.
A TERRIFIC INTERVIEW. Fr Patrick O’Grady was refreshingly honest in the interview as contrasted with the vagueness, subterfuge and innuendoes of most interviews of this type. If someone couldn’t understand this interview it may be because they have an opposing agenda and didn’t want to understand it. Fr Patrick was very precise and measured in what was said and COULD NOT have been clearer. I concur with Fr Patrick Reardon (another Patrick!) in recommending this interview to others as clearly stating and defending the Antiochian position. I also commend Metropolitan Joseph for not permitting the Antiochian Orthodox to be detrimentally controlled by those who seem to not seek the best interests of Orthodox in U.S. but rather prefer to play power politics.This statement of mine comes from one who is himself obviously a convert and who has an Antiochian Orthodox Church in Washington State near Seattle consisting primarily of converts. Thank you Fr Patrick for a job well done.
What a bunch of nonsense. Of thrice-blessed memory, Patriarch Ignatius and also Patriarch Alexiy II both understood, when they signed on to this, that the EP was taking the lead.
“It is human process” it was stated. That is the official word of Antioch? How sad the fall from Sts. Peter and Paul.
When Met. Joseph was enthroned, it was made clear that the new Antioch under Pat. John has a different view or reality than Pat. Ignatius.
Met. Philip was at least opened to having the EP as leader “if” he was on American soil.
That Qatar is used as an excuse for disunity (#AntiochisfordisunityinUSA) is hideous.
This toady against ecclesiatical normality can say what he wants, but it is dishonest. He knows that the new position under his new Patriarch is against canonical unity under any circumstance. This was already made clear at Met. Joseph’s enthronement.
JC, everything you say is true. But there is another truth that is unstated: the stunning bad faith in which the Episcopal Assembly process has displayed, namely that it has degenerated into a vehicle for being under Phanariote submission.
Case in point: when I listened to this interview, I was shocked to hear the name “Ambassador Theron,” who was the American legate in Qatar. If this is who I think it is, I engaged in a long, internet debate with him several years ago (before the Qatar situation blew up). It was clear that not only was he historically ignorant –despite being an Ivy League grad–but clearly within the globalist camp. His “invitation” of a Greek/Phanariote priest to serve as the lynch-pin for an eventual Phanariote-dominated archdiocese thus makes perfect sense to my eyes.
I’m sorry, but the Chambessy process has proven to be instituted in bad faith. I cannot fault the Antiochians (or the Bulgars or ROCOR) for pulling out, in spirit if not in fact.
“Met. Philip was at least opened to having the EP as leader “if” he was on American soil.”
Do you not know this was a sneer? If Constantinople falls, Antioch is next in line for the first among equals.
Um, no. Alexandria is next in the diptychs, not Antioch. And at present she deserves to be first, based on merits. But she is too busy converting Africa, her undisputed historical canonical territory, to Orthodox Christianity to be sticking her nose in everywhere around the world. Others could benefit from her example.
It was indeed a sneer.
What comes first, the chicken or the egg? We have here a dual path toward Holy Orthodoxy in
North America.
Unity in love and unity in administration develop together.
Administrative unity.
“Unity in Spirit”
I agree, administrative unity can come best with relationships on hierarchal level and, equally important, on a laity level. There appears to be a great lack of hierarchal relationship
as in brotherly love. It appears that there exists a great divide between jurisdictional bishops as evidenced by little or no interaction or communication as well as little or no activities between churches on a city or metro area.
There appears to be a lack of brotherly Holy Orthodox love. In order to establish a love relationship, communication is a must. Many people witness an attitude of “my church is the true church”.
Without a loving growing relationship between bishops, the laity will not have a loving relationship and thereby continuing a separate, un-Orthodox Spirit, poor relationship. There are several instances, where canonical Orthodox individuals have been turned away from another Orthodox jurisdiction church, not allowed to enter.
It is difficult to argue that this separation in action of churches is caused by a negligence or desire on the part of the bishops. Many bishops have such large diocese they can rarely visit each church which contributes to a feeling of the laity of a distancing from bishops.
Relationships can only develop by communicating and the jurisdictional bishops appear to not be communicating. If so, there would be trickle down effect of relationships between local churches.
There is a ground swell of desire for closeness on laity level, but greatly lacking on the part of the bishops as well as patriarchs, without which, it is difficult to develop the maturity needed for healthy growing Orthodoxy, that is bringing more people closer to Christ.
Desire for unity from the ground up is alive where the bishops have allowed communication.
Desire for Orthodox unity appears to be absent from the top down.
It will come. When the children of the fraternal laymen you talk about become our bishops, unity will be almost certain.
Of the 797,600 adherents of Orthodox Christianity in America 474,500 are members of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. 22,100 of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate) and 10,500 of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate). Thus giving the Ecumenical Patriarchate in America 507,100 adherents to the remaining 290,500 adherents of all other jurisdictions combined. The Ecumenical Patriarchate almost has double the adherents of all other jurisdictions combined. To think the EP won’t take the lead in this is nonsensical as the numbers speak for themselves. At the last Episcopal Assembly the only jurisdictions who were even willing to hypothetically draw up what a unified American Church would like divided into local dioceses were the Greeks, Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russians, and Patriarchal Romanians. All the remaining jurisdictions refused this simple exercise in a total pettiness of action! How can one work towards unity with attitudes like that? Back to SCOBA and canonical irregularity, and irrationality. The Old World signed off on this. This is a human process and the numbers count.
* All numbers were taken from: http://assemblyofbishops.org/assets/files/docs/research/2.%20Eight%20Facts%20About%20Church%20Attendance.pdf
I think the expectation of some was that the Assembly would be working toward an autocephalous American Church, not one under the Phanar or under any other patriarchate. No doubt the Greeks are predominate here in America. But I do not think that any of the other jurisdictions, in signing on to the Assembly scheme, were electing to place the American Church under Constantinople.
Since no one else is apparently interested in joining either Constantinople or the OCA, it’s all a dead letter, SCOBA II at best.
And, honestly, serious observers knew this from the get go. All Antioch has to do to join the OCA would be for the synod of Antioch to vote to release its archdiocese here. They could do it in favor of Constantinople too, if they wanted to. Any of the other jurisdictions could have done that. Simple deal, most senior bishop in a territory becomes diocesan, or whatever other scheme they could agree on.
The Assembly was designed, however, for one purpose and one purpose only, to give the impression of moving toward a united American church while making sure that the only omophorion that that church would be under would not be local but the Phanar. I.e., either America unites under Constantinople or nothing happens.
The rest of Orthodoxy has chosen nothing over the Phanar. So now we know how everyone really feels.
Misha observes, “I think the expectation of some was that the Assembly would be working toward an autocephalous American Church, not one under the Phanar or under any other patriarchate.”
An American church under Constantinople is a thought I might be able to endure.
An autocephalous American church is a thought beyond endurance.
The history of the OCA amply demonstrates what happens when the teenagers get the car keys.
Father Patrick said “The history of the OCA amply demonstrates what happens when the teenagers get the car keys.”
This is rather gratuitous insult. It is unseemly, especially coming from a senior priest who should know that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
OCA here, and Fr. Patrick is right in his assessment.
With all due respect, Father, a bit disingenuous. Are you somehow implying that other autocephalous Churches haven’t had their difficulties? That there haven’t been leaders in other jurisdictions who were absolutely disastrous? I don’t remember everything I learned about Church history, but I’m pretty sure there were some patriarchs who weren’t just bad leaders – they were condemned as heretics! Comparing the OCA to that is absolutely ludicrous.
Father Patrick says:
“An American church under Constantinople is a thought I might be able to endure.”
In regards to this being that I am in the GOAA I personally have no problems with this because I do believe that Orthodoxy here in America is highly immature and needs to grow up. Going under the EP is fine with me and many other non-Greeks, including Carpatho-Russians that are current under the jurisdiction of the EP.
I would also not have a problem going under Antioch or Jerusalem or Alexandria although Antioch, after the EP, would be my preference.
I would have a problem going under the MP. The American Government would not tolerate it and neither would I as the MP has united itself with the Russian Federation and is committed to the glorious resurrection and future of Holy Mother Russia. The MP is so pro-Russian in its outlook and mindset that this is wholly unacceptable to American Orthodox. The MP has still a lot to clean up in its own house and the title of EP will not be given to Moscow any time soon.
Finally going under the EP would have to be clearly spelled out as a temporary situation until such time as the American Orthodox Church grows up in a purely Orthodox Spirituality and Mentality cultivating a unique and distinct American Orthodox identity. This can only happen “Organically” over time and we are not there as of yet.
The EP bringing in the monasteries of Geronda Ephraim is a clear sign that even the EP wants its American flock in the GOAA to start to come back to its Orthodox roots. The promotion of “Be the Bee” and the Ministry of Fr. Barnabas Powell at the forefront of Orthodox Evangelism in the GOAA is not only a healthy sign of implanting Orthodoxy deep into the fabric of America, but also desperation on the part of the GOAA that as the older Greek generation goes away a new American population is coming into the Church and that new generation is over 70% convert. NOT from marriage but in the words of Fr. Powell converts who want to be “Orthodox on Purpose.”
Whether people like it or not, and I know most people do not like it, the GOAA under the EP has the money, the resources, the people, the political clout and the PR to establish Orthodoxy as a KNOWN Christian Church and a viable alternative to failed Protestant Churches and a quickly dying RCC here in America.
The EP is, like Michael Bauman states, the only one behind the process of Uniting the American Orthodox Church. This has and continues to be the most logical choice for all of us.
Now I know many won’t like to hear that and won’t hear that and that’s OK I am in no great rush as we still have a lot of work to do on the ground and to ourselves as individual Orthodox Christians. And yet uniting with the EP for a temporary time is still the best solution.
Now do I like what the EP does on certain issues? Nope! Do I like that its political and plays games with US politicians, like the Archons awarding VP Biden their religious freedom award? Not one bit. So I am not saying all of this as someone who is plainly uncritical of the EP, in Fact I am very critical of the EP, but what other choice in the long run do we have?
We need to mature as Orthodox and we need to be united to a Patriarch that will give us the best chance of maturing and then letting us go to find our own way, which I guarantee you will not happen in any of our lifetimes. Maybe our kids, but not us.
Further, after all of the Jurisdictional propaganda is put aside and ignored the reality is the EP is not out to make any Orthodox Greek, but to make us and to allow us to be made Orthodox. The various ethnic jurisdictions under the EP have not turned Greek and are no where close to being Greek.
Further, even the GOAA is very Americanized and a standing committee on producing English translations of our various liturgical text has been recently formed. No Greek here guys. Even Greek Orthodox parishes, especially those that are heavily convert in nature as 100% English with no to very little Greek. If English is the predominate language in GOAA churches what type of culture do you think is mostly if not wholly there?
This is what I mean by Orthodox becoming American Orthodox Organically. No 1970 Tomos imposing unity from the top down, but a natural unity that imposes itself on the Orthodox Church here in America from the bottom up.
This Organic Unity takes time. It cannot be rushed, and in the process we have to get to know each other and love one another. So we can continue to talk about No Foreign Bishops, the 1970 Tomos, the glorious MP and the Russian Orthodox Church with its thousand communicants, who are mostly Orthodox in name only., etc.
Or we can talk about real Orthodox Unity and yes that means for the time being going under the EP IMHO until we mature. I know that’s going to cause a backlash and criticism of the EP as “Black Bart” and so on but as I see it for now its the best course to go.
On a final note IF the EP is so small and so weak, especially living in Turkey, then we American orthodox should be able to impose many demands on the EP, which you would be surprised how many we get, especially a very high degree of self-governance like is had by the GOAA.
Well now that I have put a nice big bulls eye on my chest I await the arrows to fly.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Peter, this is an excellent response. My only quibble is your hastily throwing the MP under the bus because “he supports Putin.” According to informed sources, Met Hilarion Alfeyev went to Putin three years ago and asked him to save the Christians of the Middle East. I know that sounds fantastic if viewed in an American milieu which is at best post-Christian if not yet actively anti-Christian. That Putin would listen is not beyond the realm of possibility and actually makes geo-strategic sense.
Now I realize this won’t please the those deluded Zionist Christians, Russophobes, and ardent secularists who worship at the shrine of Woodrow Wilson. And it all may be a ruse on Putin’s part. But even so –so what? Are Christians being saved in Syria? You bet. If it’s all nothing but crass cynicism, give those poor people more of it.
Finally, I would caution all Christians of all stripes to be very careful about bending the knee to our Federal government, or even our degraded nation as it stands. If you would permit me, please read the following analysis by Russ Douthat, the token Conservative at The New York Times:
“That’s because America’s problem isn’t too much religion, or too little of it. It’s bad religion: the slow-motion collapse of traditional Christianity and the rise of a variety of destructive pseudo-Christianities int its place. Since the 1960s, the institutions hat sustained orthodox Christian believe –Catholic and Protestant alike–have entered a state of near-terminal decline. The churches with the strongest connection to the Christian past have lost members, money, and authority; the elite that was once at least sympathetic to Christian ideas has become hostile or indifferent; and the culture as a whole has turned its back on may of the faith’s precepts and demands.” (Douthat, 2012; Bad Religion.)
BTW, I recommend reading the entire essay by Rod Dreher from whence this passage is taken in today’s on-line edition of The American Conservative.)
The bottom line is that the average American little-o orthodox Christian may have to choose between continuing to serve as cannon-fodder for a Gomorrhan empire or at least praying that a Christian remnant as represented by a resurgent Russia is not likewise extinguished. This choice will be even more acute for those of us who are real Orthodox Christians.
Make no mistake: the only reason Istanbul and its archdioceses in the Greek diaspora hasn’t succumbed to the spirit of the age is because of the Athonite renewal here in America (and good old-fashioned Aussie-bloke Greek cussednes). Given George Soros’ advanced age, I can understand the pressure that the Phanar must feel.
George says:
Hi George,
First, I agree with you 100% in regards to the MP supporting Putin. I have no problem with that at all. I have said and believe that President Putin and the Russian Federation are the check-block to the Globalists’ plans in Syrian, the Middle East and the rest of the world. So you and I are on the same page with that and I agree with you. In fact, I admire the Russian Orthodox Church working with the RF in not only this area, but in ALL areas of Russian life to reinvigorate Orthodoxy in the Russia and checking the evil plans of the Globalists. For this Russia and the ROC not only should be but must be commended and supported. Absolutely. So in this regard if I threw the MP under the bus I apologize and take it back.
However, the MP has united itself to such a large extent with the RF and attempting to restore the glory of Holy Mother Russia that its aims, at the present moment, are incompatible with American Orthodox Christianity and our own distinct American Orthodox culture, especially among our converts.
This is why the EP and/or Antioch IMHO would be much better suited in heading a United American Orthodox Church because of the high degree of so-called “Americanization” in GOAA and Antiochian Churches, and OCA churches, as well as the high number of American converts who’s culture is American and not Russian.
Further, I have made it no secret that the MP’s push of the “Third Rome” concept, although valid at one point in time prior to the 1917 Revolution, is no longer a valid concept. Now I will go a step further and say that if ROCOR was still separate from the MP I would also look favorably on a ROCOR headed American Orthodox Church because of its high number of converts and strong adherence to the traditions of Orthodoxy.
Alas once reunification occurred between ROCOR and the MP the MP would be calling the shots, and I cannot see the American Government or non-Russian Orthodox people adhering to Moscow, and its heavy does of Russian Culture. The US Government could not allow Moscow to gain an intelligence foothold on American soil. This last point has already occurred, but such a blatant foothold could never be allowed by the U.S. Government.
So we are felt with two choices: Constantinople or Antioch. From a purely religious point of view both are equal and both are strong maybe Antioch more so than Constantinople. However, when compared with the amount of Money, political connections, number of People and PR Constantinople via the GOAA, and the rest of its ethnic jurisdictions in toe wins out. Add to this Geronda Ephraim’s Monasteries, the present heart and soul of the GOAA, and the EP definitely comes out on top.
Now will this happen anytimes soon? I do not believe so. To much hatred and suspicion among the various jurisdictions prevents any type of unity from happening. But we should at least get to know each other, start to love and trust each other and then and only then “Organically” will we become united that we can push for independence, and I do mean push NOT request.
Until then the status quo will remain and American Orthodox Christians will continue to pray fast and engage the world around us for the glory of Jesus Christ. Let us all remember to first seek the Kingdom of God and all other things will be added unto us.
Take care George.
Peter
Oh BTW I also agree with the rest of your response as well.Very well said George.
Peter
“The MP has still a lot to clean up in its own house and the title of EP will not be given to Moscow any time soon.”
I think there is some confusion about this. Constantinople’s status as “first among equals” is a position given to it by canon law. It is second in line behind Rome, which fell into heresy and departed the Church, thus leaving Constantinople first in honor and “chairman of the board” in the event of a Council.
The title “Ecumenical Patriarch” is something different. It was appropriated by Constantinople in the sixth century while Rome was still atop the diptychs. No one “gave” the title “EP” to Constantinople. It arrogated it to itself. Rome protested, stating that asserting universal priesthood was an indication of the anti-Christ (pause for a wave of irony re: both Rome and the Phanar).
Thus, no one could in turn “give” the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” to the MP. Constantinople simply started calling themselves that and since no one broke communion over it, it stuck. As to Constantinople’s place in the diptychs, I am unaware of any plans to challenge it. As a practical matter, it is an anachronism without much practical significance so no one need bother, even if they had a good reason. The best reason would be that the second place in the diptychs was allocated to Constantinople based on its status as the new capital of the empire. Now, the country in which the Pat. of Constantinople resides is predominantly Muslim and Istanbul is not even the capital of the Turkish state.
As to the Church in America, the rest of the jurisdictions have already forcefully repudiated any unity under Constantinople so it is a dead issue. OCA has stated it will only join to form a larger autocephalous church. Antioch is out. Moscow does not want to preside over the American Church. It already granted a tome to the OCA. It is satisfied with having ROCOR here. Thus, we have no dog in this fight and can happily watch it from some distance – which is basically what ROCOR said recently.
Very well written Peter!
“The American Government would not tolerate it”
Sounds like an excellent argument in favor of the MP, if you ask me.
By that rationale, Father, leadership in the worldwide ordering of Orthodox polity should place the Ecumenical Patriarchate dead last or close to it. Numbers count, and ignoring them is petty and nonsensical perhaps? Or will the EP continue with irrationality in its claims to authority within global Orthodoxy? I merely mirror your words in the hope of enlightening you on potential reasons why your arguments might be considered unpersuasive by many.
Better, all of the local churches could strive to act with love and humility and piety, and then trust could develop and unity would ensue. What we see going on strikes me as the result of a failure to develop an atmosphere of trust. What Antioch and Moscow seem to have said through their actions is that they do not trust the EP’s leadership in this matter. Alexandria standing very publicly with Moscow on the matter of the Church in the Ukraine also seems telling.
Whether they are correct enough to make it worth pulling back from the process of unity in America and elsewhere is something they are in a better position to judge than most of us.
I personally have more trust in the Antiochian leadership and the Russian leadership than I do in the EP leadership, so this makes me breathe a sigh of relief. I have long believed that we are a very long way from unity here — at least a century. But that is just me — I can understand why others are disappointed.
I am also curious why those who beat the drums don’t get their own houses in order first. Why are all EP parishes not under their local Greek bishop? And why aren’t a few of the GOA bishops Carpatho-Russian and Ukrainian — with Greek parishes in their Metropolises under them? Nothing is needed from the EA or the other jurisdictions in order to accomplish this.
It seems that ethnic jurisdictions under the EP and ethnic dioceses in the OCA can be conceived of as a sort of Orthodox Uniatism — you get to keep your outer forms and ecclesiastical structure, just change who you commemorate and answer to. I suspect that a failure on the part of the OCA to integrate its ethnic dioceses is a justifiable fear of them being poached by patriarchates in other lands.
Because “everybody knows” the Greeks are crazy, the Slavs are morose, the Antiochians worldly and nobody knows what the OCA is. In short nobody likes anybody else. The EP is the only Patriarchate behind the process. Shoot we have to prepare for decades just over the idea of a council. Efficient we are not, but that is a good thing as efficiency is not a trait normally associated with God.
Well, these impressions of each other might or might not bear out in fact, but they’re certainly not true of what most orthodox Christians in America experience in their daily lives, If people have been hurt by their fellow Christians, that’s wrong and very sad.
For myself, I can say that — for all my long life, both as a layman and as a monk — I’ve been very kindly welcomed in our parishes and monasteries of whatever ethnic description in the USA
And I hope that this will be true for all of you.
‘Let us love each other, so that with the same mind we may profess the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, same in essence and indivisible.’
RE: “. . . and nobody knows what the OCA is.”
I know this was not meant to be funny, but it made me laugh anyway!
I am curious — why hasn’t the Phanar taken care of what it can control by unifying all of its jurisdictions in America and having one bishop per city/diocese?
That is a good question you raise Edward why hasn’t the EP unified its ethnic jurisdictions? Maybe to avoid the charge of forcing unity and making everybody Greek? Maybe? So the Greeks have theirs (GOAA) and the Carpatho-Rusyns have their jurisdiction (ACROD) and Ukrainians have theirs (Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA). All under the EP, but all keeping their ethnicity.
It does not seem like the EP is forcing anybody to become Greek. Last I checked these were functioning Orthodox Jurisdictions.
The OCA also has its ethnic jurisdictions. I guess the same question can be asked of the OCA, especially with all that transpired recently with the Romanians.
Peter
I was responding to Fr. Dionysius, who wrote that the EP’s jurisdictions (and the patriarchal Romanians) were the only ones who were willing to go along with proceeding toward unification. My simple question was, “what’s been stopping them, if they are really gung ho about it?” It is easy to say you are for something that you know isn’t going to happen.
Integration wouldn’t have to be making everyone Greek, and the fact that you see it that way is interesting. On the contrary, true integration would mean leaving all thd CR and Ukrainian bishops as diocesan bishops, and placing all of the Greek parishes in their dioceses — of equal size and stature to the ones given to Greek bishops — under a non-Greek bishop.
When I was in the OCA, I didn’t like the fact of its ethnic jurisdictions. If Fr. Dionysius had cited them as a group willing to integrate, I woild have included them in my question.
Edward its because of the charge that the EP wants to make the other Orthodox Greek that the EP has allowed these Ethnic diocese to exists and function with their own traditions and customs. Further, like I said before, real unity comes about organically not by force.
Truth also be told you and I will have to leave this world because you don’t trust the EP, your words not mine, and I do not trust the MP in its pro-Russian stance. So you and I will never unite, but maybe, hopefully our children will who will be more Americanized, and with the coming soft persecution, more Orthodox that they will want to unite.
Theirs is the future of Orthodox Unity on this continent not ours.
Peter
The important question is, how many of the 797,000 are barbarians?
Dear Father Dionysius,
Many people in the OCA have long expected the Primate of the hoped for Orthodox Church of the United States to have come from the former Greek Archdiocese; the numbers do matter indeed. You should remember that the OCA was one of the few jurisdictions who responded to the initial proposals and Her position could not be any clearer: we are not supporting anything less than an administratively united, autocephalous entity. This is in line with the OCA’s position both before and after She was granted autocephaly by the Mother Church, Moscow.
There really is no need to “explore” anything if the presuppositions are (a) the Patriarch of Constantinople is First without Equals; (b) Canon 28 applies everywhere in the world outside the canonical boundaries of the first 14 local churches; (c) Constantinople is the exclusive granter of autocephaly; and (d) The Church of the Unites States of America would be an autonomous entity under Constantinople. In summary, Constantinople is to blame for the failure of Episcopal Assemblies.
Dear Carl,
The other Patriarchs signed off on this making the Greek Archbishop of America, who is exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch, head of the American Episcopal Assembly. It wasn’t as if the Patriarchs didn’t understand what was happening when they agreed to this. They are not naive. Now we go further down the pike with this and all promises are off except for the EP jurisdictions in America and the Patriarchal Romanians. Shameful. One thing is for sure which is America isn’t ready for autocephaly when Patriarchates and their diaspora national churches can’t stick to what was agreed upon initially with full understanding.
Dear Father–It is one thing to agree for the Exarch of Constantinople to chair the local assembly of bishops, it is another thing for the same person and his entourage to bully the others.
No, Father. You see, originally, SCOBA was to have a rotating presidency. It was only because the Greeks were going to have a hissy fit that the Greek Archbishop ended up being the permanent president. The Phanar somehow imagines that their rank in the diptychs entitles them to all chairmanships in the diaspora. So, the rest of the Orthodox gave in. Same with the assemblies. I don’t think one can assume that agreement to participate in these assemblies was agreement for each of these synods to come under Constantinople. I would like to see that explicitly in writing before accepting it. Specifically, I’m certain Moscow never agreed to any such thing given its relationship with the OCA and the presence of ROCOR here in the US. So there was no “full understanding” that any resulting united entity would, after all was said and done, be under the Phanar.
Now, if that was not clear to Constantinople, it certainly is now.
Misha two points: 1) This isn’t SCOBA anymore. Their was full disclosure when the Patriarchates impliminted this process.
2) The MP doesn’t even take the OCA tomos seriously. If they did they wouldn’t have MP parishes in America. If the MP took the tomos seriously they would have forced ROCOR in America to come under the so called “autocephalous” American Church. We all know that didn’t happen. Why? One could write a book on this subject and several have been already on Russian American Orthodoxy in it’s three main jurisdictions and their relations or lack thereof to date.
The tomos is symbolic but not in reality effective because many Orthodox Churches don’t accept it, and not even the MP or ROCOR truly abide by it in America. The OCA functions as an autonomous exarchate of the MP, but certainly not as an autocephalous National Church.
Lastly, the Episcopal Assembly is the result of the decision of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference, which met in Chambésy Switzerland in June of 2009, after the extraordinary Synaxis of all the Heads of the Autocephalous Churches convened by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. The Episcopal Assembly will consist of the active canonical bishops who reside in the region designated as North and Central America. In every Assembly, the chairman will be the senior bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The goal of the Episcopal Assembly in America was a unified Church in America with the Protos being the Greek Archbishop of NYC. To deny this is to deny the facts.
Fr bless.
The trouble is that the Epis. Assembly process has veered from it’s original mission. Moreover, the honeyed words of HH Bartholomew are countered by his actions in Ukraine and Qatar. This looks like bad faith on Bartholomew’s part. I hope I’m wrong. It’s even an open question right now whether the great council planned for 2016 will even take place. (That’s how pissed the MP is about the EP’s meddling in Ukraine and the AntP about Qatar.)
However, I will say this: after the previous EAUSA meeting in 2014 (not this year’s), I was told that the typical Greek obtuseness came to light. I’ve held this info to myself for over a year now, hoping that it was just a temporary aberration that would right itself in time. Mainly that they didn’t recognize any other jurisdiction’s rights or privileges even in cities where the GOA presence was late-coming. In other words, the same-old, same-old.
Since then the position of the non-GOA jurisdictions have only hardened against any attempts at all at GOA/Phanariote domination. I guess the proof is in the pudding: If I’m reading the numbers right, every year there have been fewer and fewer bishops attending.
Fr.,
No argument regarding the status of the OCA except that I’m sure the MP lays no claim to it anymore, regardless of how other jurisdictions view it.
As to any agreement that any American Church formed as a result of the Assemblies would be under the omophorion of Constantinople, I’m sure you have something in writing which explicitly states that, don’t you?
I mean, it appears that no one else understood it that way given their subsequent actions.
You do have a point, of sorts, though. I recall that Met. Phillip remarked something to the effect that he didn’t know why we needed another SCOBA. Expectations of all the parties should have been laid out, in writing, ahead of time. If they had been, I’m sure that there would have been no assemblies. The Phanar would have clearly stated it was seeking to form an autonomous church under its omophorion. The OCA would have clearly stated that it was seeking a broader autocephalous church. The other jurisdictions would have either lined up in the same camp as the OCA or simply declined to participate if they were no ok with omophorion under Constantinople. There was no meeting of the minds, obviously. It was everyone indulging their own dreams and not wanting to rock the boat, hoping for the best.
What could go wrong?
Father Dionysius,
I agree with you, but remember we are dealing with many power plays and the Metropolia for, whatever reasons, wants to be in charge here in America, just like the Russians want to be in charge via the 2007 act of reconciliation and truth be told the EP wants to be in charge.
For both historical and political reasons we here in America do not want unity. Even those who want so-called Autocephaly would eventually in fight and destroy themselves. We truly do not like each other for a variety of reasons. I wish it was different, but its not.
So I agree with you that the Bishops are not naive, but we the laity are and we all have our own agendas and power plays from ROCOR still wanting to wall itself off to one degree or another, to the OCA still promoting its 1970 Tomos from a Russian Church it was barely a part of, to the Antiochians who seemed to be on the cusp of creating an American Church until Antioch said no and..well you know what happened after that.
Further, when Moscow started to push the so-called “Third Rome” BS so it could get the mantle and title of EP THE EP pushed back with its interpretation of Canon 28. You had Metropolitan Jonah’s Dallas Speech that angered the GOAA and the EP and the rest as they say is history.
A lot of hurt feelings all around. Before we can have any unity we have to heal our self-inflicted wounds. That’s going to take time and a lot of prayer and fasting.
So I agree with you, but there is so much bad blood to first overcome.
Peter
What does seem to be the case is that the rest of Orthodoxy simply can’t get along with Constantinople on the Phanar’s terms. But so what? Does anyone need Constantinople for anything?
I don’t think so.
We can just go on about our business and let them pound sand that their baseless assertions gain no traction. They can’t actually do anything about it.
I mean, I have never heard an ROC hierarch explicitly propose the “Third Rome” theory from centuries ago. However, as the largest Orthodox church in the world, Moscow does “export” Orthodoxy and, as a practical matter but without insisting on any such status, fill that role to some extent. I’ve never heard the MP discuss a change in the diptychs either. This seems to be a pet myth of the Greeks – “Third Rome” and “displacing the EP”.
The truth is that Constantinople, because of its history and actions, has made itself irrelevant to much of the rest of the Orthodox world. Nobody bothers with trying to displace it in the diptychs. Why bother? Is their canonically established role as chairman of the board relevant for any reason other than some fanciful future Council? Does Moscow have to declare itself “Third Rome” to exist as the largest Orthodox church spreading the gospel and its influence? Of course not. People just guffaw at terms like “New Rome” and “Third Rome”.
It is impossible to take the Phanar’s Canon 28 theory seriously. Pat. Bartholomew has been repeatedly and firmly told this by everyone who is not Greek.
Unity in North America will not be achieved under Constantinople. Pat. Bartholomew has been repeatedly and firmly told this by everyone who is not Greek.
Discussion on these matters is fruitless. Best just to ignore them and let them tend to their own affairs.
What Constantinople does not seem to understand is this: To enjoy its self proclaimed status as universal patriarch outside of the allotted territories of other autocephalous churches, it needs the cooperation of the rest of the Orthodox world to acknowledge that claim. To assert its jurisdiction here in America over a newly formed autonomous local church, it needs the cooperation of the rest of the Orthodox jurisdictions here in order to assume that role.
Yet the ROC does not need the cooperation of anyone to plant churches in the diaspora wherever the local governments will allow them. It does not need anyone’s permission to reclaim churches that were formerly property of the Russian Empire. And it does not need anyone’s permission to use its synergy with the Russian state to spread its influence.
Constantinople always ends up looking weak and pathetic by demanding what it cannot take.
Peter–OCA’s position is much more nuanced than “we want to be in charge.” In fact, OCA hierarchs have stated over and over that the OCA will exchange her autocephaly for an administratively united and truly autocephalous local church. Until then, the OCA will do those things that autocephalous churches do.
Then why have a Tomos? Renounce the Tomos and go back under Moscow. Will the OCA do that? No! So I stand on what I previously said. BTW, if I got personal with you I apologize. I still love you brother. You’re a good egg. (I hope that’s not dating me?)
Peter
LOL. You could be a decade older than me. Not bad for a 80 year old. Many more years!
I ask again: why are there three “major” jurisdictions under the EP in America? Actually there are at least 4, since the EP has extracted the JP’s parishes here as well.
The EP, having failed to lead by coercion and intrigue, could perhaps lead by example and demonstrate how they would happily integrate various ethnicities and calendars under a single jurisdiction without overlapping dioceses. They can work in the patriarchal Romanians for bonus points.
As to what the other heads of autocephalous churches actually signed off on, I think this is what Fr. Patrick addressed:
…the Episcopal Assembly, as it is now operating—notice I say “operating,” not as it’s constituted to operate—it cannot succeed…
It could be that Constantinople believed that it had convinced all of the participants to accept what Fr. Patrick describes as an “innovative” interpretation of the canons. That most self-evidently could not ever have been the case, it would seem to me. Otherwise the EA would have died in infancy, since few participants would accept the EP position on “barbarian lands.”
Quite the contrary — the only reason the EA could have moved forward would be that the other participants were giving Constantinople a major leadership role, but in the process, giving the EP a chance to demonstrate, at the least, that it was prepared not to press those claims. Fr. Patrick indicates that Antioch came to the conclusion that this was not happening after all, and that the EP was, through its actions, showing that it intended very much to press those claims.
The MP/ROCOR clearly had already arrived at the same conclusion some time ago, although as far as I know, they remained circumspect and cited only pastoral concerns and a desire not to jeopardize the long awaited and still recent reunification of the MP and ROCOR. While I doubt there is any substantive difference between Antioch and Moscow on the EP’s interpretation of the canons, Fr. Patrick took it a further step by directly addressing those canonical issues, presumably with Antioch’s blessing.
“First among equals” is the only version that I ever have encountered until your post! :>)
“First among equals” is a pretty, though meaningless, phrase that must help people sleep better at night.
If they’re equal, no one’s first.
If one is first, they’re not equal.
Antonia–I was referring to the declaration by His Eminence Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, Metropolitan of Bursa, Constntinople Patriarchate, and Professor of Theology, University of Thessaloniki.
“The primacy of the archbishop of Constantinople has nothing to do with the diptychs, which, as we have already said, merely express this hierarchical ranking (which, again in contradictory terms the text of the Moscow Patriarchate concedes implicitly but denies explicitly). If we are going to talk about the source of a primacy, then the source of primacy is the very person of the Archbishop of Constantinople, who precisely as bishop is one “among equals,” but as Archbishop of Constantinople is the first-hierarch without equals (primus sine paribus).”
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2014/01/met-elpidophoros-of-bursa-issues-strong.html
If one were looking for the point from which an emerging schism will emanate, I would be hard pressed to find a better location than Met. Elpidophoros’ innovative notions about Constantinople’s primacy. In fact, the only primacy that Constantinople enjoys is a direct result of its status accorded to it by the diptychs and apart from that, it has no “primacy” at all. If Constantinople were somehow to insist on this Roman ecclesiology being accepted by the rest of the Church, it might very well constitute heresy on the part of the Phanar. And I assume that Met. Elpidophoros, if he ascends to the “throne of St. Andrew” will do so, if Pat. Bartholomew does not beat him to it.
Again, this is all attention getting, pride with a bullhorn. I think the MP simply tries to ignore this stuff and leave the onus on Constantinople to break communion if it takes its own bs seriously. That way the ROC is not dragged down into the mud with them.
I actually thought it would be Moscow’s Third Rome argument IMHO than a so-called weak EP in the Phanar that according to the Russians doesn’t have that many people or strength. So why be afraid of the EP if he is so weak according to the Russians? Powerful Moscow is the one to fear that is so big and strong.
Peter
I think that has been my point, in a way. The Phanar is really powerless to enforce any of its nonsense so why take it seriously? Moscow can lead the Orthodox world by simply being the largest church and engaging in expansion. I do not think that Moscow has ever claimed the diaspora as its exclusive jurisdiction. If others want to build churches in the diaspora, they are more than welcome. Anything that spreads the faith.
Moscow need not claim any “Third Rome” status. If people want to “fear” Moscow, so be it. I see nothing menacing about the MP. But I don’t actually think that they care what Western Enlightenment minded folks think about their little project anyway since the Western Enlightenment mindset is the enemy of Christ and His Church.
To the extent that facts on the ground actually matter, in effect, Moscow is already the “Third Rome” in reality. The Patriarch of Moscow is Orthodox and the patriarch of the capital of the largest country (in area) in the world and the largest Orthodox country in the world which has once again begun spiritual expansion into the diaspora. Russia is even the second largest recipient of immigration in the world: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russia-the-worlds-second-largest-immigration-haven-11053
All of the above notwithstanding, it has not, to my knowledge claimed the status of “Third Rome”, despite the fearful projections of the Greeks.
Constantinople, far from being the “New Rome”, is a second rate city called Istanbul in a third world Muslim country with a total population of Greek Orthodox adherents on its canonically given territory that number a few thousand. It has to claim the diaspora. That’s the only thing that even puts it on the radar.
Claims of “Third Rome” status and claims of “New Rome” status are meaningless. People can read a map.
The Phanar can project itself as an Eastern pope if it wants to. It is merely a source of amusement, or object of indifference. Moscow should be polite to the Phanar, but that does not include agreeing with them about any particular thing. It’s more the tone in which the MP addresses them. It’s clear that much of the rest of the Orthodox world simply puts up with their nonsense rather than endorses it.
The only “danger” that Constantinople poses is their flirtation with heresy in their redefinition of primacy along Roman lines. What Met. Elpidophoros wrote not only does not reflect the Orthodox faith but is clearly a papal power play. He even claimed that the Phanar had the power to unilaterally revoke autocephaly without the agreement of any synod. That whole placing of the person of the patriarch over the will of a synod is very reminiscent of Rome’s view of the papacy, as is the alleged mysterious extracanonical source of the Patriarch of Constantinople’s primacy within the Church.
These guys just sit around thinking of new ways to expand their own power over the rest of the Orthodox world. It doesn’t even have to pass the laugh test. Arrogance on acid. Nonetheless, you have to feel for them given their situation in Turkey. Actually, the whole thing is about as pathetic as pathetic gets.
Actually the EP is very powerful. I happen to know that for a fact. Moscow comes close, but I can tell you from my own personal experience and familial ties that you truly have no idea how powerful the EP really is. You should not underestimate the EP. you do so at your own peril.
Peter.
Their power, as I said before, comes from their overseas possessions, not their own canonically defined territory.
And as to whatever power they have, I will believe it when I see it. Talk is cheap. You’ve made this specious claim before and nothing has developed that would lead me to take it seriously.
Yes I know, but you’re still wrong.
Peter
RE: “you truly have no idea how powerful the EP really is. You should not underestimate the EP. you do so at your own peril.”
That’s too cryptic–and ominous–for my taste, Peter. Please elaborate.
Nothing ominous whatsoever. Since 1453 the EP has had to survive Islam, threats of genocide, massacre, death, etc., for well over 400 years up to the modern age. Do don’t survive and thrive for that long by being weak.
At least Moscow got a break in 1989. The EP never did. So who do you think is more powerful. The one that is nice and tight with Purin, or the one who hasn’t stopped fighting and still standing since 1453?
Peter
Wow. Power beyond any idea one could have. Peril if you underestimate that power. Sounds like ominous Darth Vader lines from “The Empire Strikes Back.” Now if that doesn’t make a devout Orthodox Christian want to entrust his spiritual life to the EP, what possibly could?
Yes, I agree. Thank you.
I disagree Peter. The E.P. survived all these years by keeping it’s head down and obeying the Ottomans and now the Turks. That’s how Moscow survived. You keep quiet and you do what they tell you and hope you don’t have to entirely sell your soul to the devil. If you see an opportunity to take one step forward and get even one tiny concession, you take it. If the E.P. had really been fighting, the Ottomans would have shut them down. The current E.P. is lucky he doesn’t have to get permission to use the toilet from the current Turkish regime.
The U.S. government needs Turkey as an ally more than they care to see the E.P. flourish. Now if the E.P. can make life difficult for the M.P. by challenging them on the world stage that would make the U.S. very, very happy indeed because the U.S. no likey Russia or her Church, especially her Church. The problem is that, this week, the U.S. is about to piss off Turkey by supporting the Kurds right on the Turkish border and Erdogan detests the Kurds and has threatened all hell if the Kurds end up expanding on his border. Moreover, our brilliant neo-cons are about to succeed in sending 50 of our finest up into the area where our favorite Syrian anti-Assad troops are holed out. Russia has been going after them with devastating success, much to our government’s chagrin (to put it mildly). Our plan (and this is sooooo clever) is we’ll place our soldiers about amongst the Syrian troops but, wait for it….we won’t tell the Russians where they are! Those are called “human shields”. If the Russians kill one of them then we’ll just have to kick Russia’s butt, won’t we? All this is to say that, for the time being, there doesn’t look like there will much of an opening for the E.P. to get in a dig at Moscow because the boys with all the guns and power will be having a lot on their plates for the next week or so and the E.P. is just going to have to wait. But….there’s always global warming or some such Pat. Bartholomew can talk about.
Pay close attention this week. Things could get real dicey.
Your explanation is inadequate, Peter.
This comment seems to be a threat of some kind:
“You should not underestimate the EP. you do so at your own peril.”
What “peril” do you have in mind?
The peril is that if Moscow attempts to marginalize the EP it has resources at its disposal to block the MP on anything and everything it wants to do inside the Church. BTW Moscow knows this and this is why even Moscow begrudgingly accords respect and deference to the EP, and vise versa for the EP towards Moscow.
Both of them are heavy hitters that should not be taken lightly.
Peter
Good question!
“. . . the EP it has resources at its disposal to block the MP on anything and everything it wants to do inside the Church.”
Yes, I’m in awe of how the Phanar has blocked the MP at every turn. It has prevented Moscow from expanding from 7,000 parishes at the end of the Soviet period to over 30,000 today. It has prevented the MP from reclaiming its churches abroad from the tsarist period. It has prevented its mission work on every continent, virtually shutting it down in North America. It has . .
Wait . . . the Phanar hasn’t done any of that. Besides, if your only real power is the claim to be able to stymie the efforts of another Orthodox church to expand the faith . . . well, we’re back to pathetic, aren’t we?
Part of this has to do with the internal machinations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. It’s thoroughly passive-aggressive dhimmitude. Externally, they lick the boots of whomever seems to have the upper hand in worldly terms. Thus you have constant encouragement of the Phanar for every verbal bone the Turkish government throws it. Occasionally, you have a “we are crucified” moment, but that is just to play to stewards in America, Australia, etc. and their governments.
Thus we have Abp. Demetrios comparing Obama to Alexander, opening up the Democratic National Convention, etc.
Yet internally, in the way the Phanar relates to its own laity and clergy, it is quite autocratic and fosters a climate where no one dares challenge the party line in public. You could see this with the faculty of Holy Cross and their unsigned endorsement of the canon 28 mythology, or the fate of Abp. Iakovos, or any other number of little dramas.
Thus it makes perfect sense to me that Peter would be in awe of the supposedly dread power of the Phanar, being one of its own children, and that Moscow would not give them a second thought.
Thank you, Carl. I don’t keep up much with the Greek wing of the Church, so had not read this declaration. I’ll have to think about it for a while. Thanks for the link.
Kurt, “first among equals” in no way is “meaningless.” All Orthodox chief hierarchs are of equal importance, but in a group situation, not everyone can speak at once; there is a “chairman” for the meeting. This understanding — the only one ever taught to me over the decades, so it is the only framework familiar to me — is why I shall have to ponder the link provided by Carl.
http://www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-en.pdf
Met. Elpidophoros of Bursa wrote a response to the MP’s statement on primacy. Met. Elpidophoros is widely regarded as a sort of heir apparent to the see of Constantinople. It is interesting reading which, to be polite, reflects Roman ecclesiology a bit more than Orthodox.
While I disagree with its expansive interpretation it is actually very Orthodox. The canon, like most administrative rules need updating. However to conflate the interpretation of Canon 28 with the formal doctrine of Papal Jurisdictional-ism is incorrect.
Yet, if you were to compare the Papal claims to that of Moscow’s “Third Rome” BS they have much more in common than the EP Canon 28 argument.
Peter
Peter, that some have called Moscow a third Rome, with justification especially when Constantinople was Uniates, is well known the Moscow Patriarchate has NEVER PROMOTED OR PROMULGATED THE IDEA, while as the whole world knows, the EP and assorted Grecomanes hardly let a day pass without brandishing Canon 28, like garlic against vampires. It SO diminishes any spiritual qualities attributed to that sometimes heretical see to which Honor must be paid, no matter WHAT.
The very actions of the MP striding hand in hand with the Russian Federation to restore the Glory of Holy Mother Russia because it views itself as the Third Rome, wand you want chapter and verse?
What I believe and what I know is actions speak louder than words. Further I have been critical of the EP’s expansionist reading of Canon 28. I have been critical of the EP of its ecumenism, and I have been critical of the EP’s modernism especially in the area of ecology.
Have you or Mischa been critical of Moscow? You have said nothing critical of Moscow even when Francis Frost has cited numerous examples of Moscow s and Russia’s misdeeds and expansionist plans.
Unless and until I hear some of that from you and others, you and I will never come to a meeting of the minds. Free you self Edward and simply abide in the Gospel.
Moscow like the EP has much to offer to help grow one’s Orthodox and to closeness with God, bMoscow and Russia foe that matter, are doing wonderful things to curb and check the globalists, but neither the EP or Moscow deserve our blind allegiance.
Listen buddy be obedient unto your bishop, and follow his spiritual advise and counsel, but never prop him or the MP up because you are setting them up for a big fall that may damage your faith.
So again obedience yes, blind allegiance no.
Good night Edward, I bid you peace.
Peter
“…you want chapter and verse?”
Yes, Peter, I absolutely do want chapter and verse.
You keep throwing around accusations that Moscow holds to a “Third Rome” ideology and has designs on becoming the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
You state that the MP is working with the state “to restore the Glory of Holy Mother Russia,” by which you clearly mean that the goal of the church is to pursue state ends rather than to pursue the well-being of the Church (for what could possibly be objectionable about trying to restore the thriving church of pre-revolutionary “Holy Russia?)”
You state that the MP does this “because (my emphasis) it views itself as the Third Rome.”
So yes, Peter, I do want quotations from someone who is in a position of authority to back up all of those claims. The fact that you continue to dodge straightforward questions like this indicates that you are unable to do so.
I specifically asked you not to repeat your talking points, and ask you again not to do so. Those of us who are concerned about the EP’s current positions and actions have been very specific about what we are concerned about and have provided quotations that demonstrate that what we are concerned about is indeed the official policy of the EP. I am happy to discuss your specific criticisms of the MP point by point, but only after you show good faith and intellectual honesty by answering these very clear and straight-forward questions.
Peter, could you please cite someone in the MP who is a modern-day equivalent of the stature of Met. Elpidophoros talking about Moscow as “Third Rome?” And while you’re at it, could you also cite someone authoritative making claims for the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch” for the Patriarch of Moscow?
Seems to me you are slinging mud at the MP to distract from the fact that what you call the “expansive interpretation” of Canon 28 is the official stated position of the EP himself, and that someone authoritative in that Patriarchate has claimed that the Patriarch himself is “first without equals” — a first in Orthodox history. Again, rather than just repeat your talking points, cite actual authorities within the MP.
The very actions of the MP striding hand in hand with the Russian Federation to restore the Glory of Holy Mother Russia because it views itself as the Third Rome, wand you want chapter and verse?
What I believe and what I know is actions speak louder than words. Further I have been critical of the EP’s expansionist reading of Canon 28. I have been critical of the EP of its ecumenism, and I have been critical of the EP’s modernism especially in the area of ecology.
Have you or Mischa been critical of Moscow? You have said nothing critical of Moscow even when Francis Frost has cited numerous examples of Moscow s and Russia’s misdeeds and expansionist plans.
Unless and until I hear some of that from you and others, you and I will never come to a meeting of the minds. Free you self Edward and simply abide in the Gospel.
Moscow like the EP has much to offer to help grow one’s Orthodox and to closeness with God, Moscow and Russia for that matter, are doing wonderful things to curb and check the globalists, and to revitalize Orthodoxy in Russia, but neither the EP or Moscow deserve our blind allegiance.
Listen buddy be obedient unto your bishop, and follow his spiritual advise and counsel, but never prop him or the MP up because you are setting them up for a big fall that may damage your faith.
So again obedience yes, blind allegiance no.
Good night Edward, I bid you peace.
Peter
“…you want chapter and verse?”
Yes, Peter, I absolutely do want chapter and verse.
You keep throwing around accusations that Moscow holds to a “Third Rome” ideology and has designs on becoming the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
You state that the MP is working with the state “to restore the Glory of Holy Mother Russia,” by which you clearly mean that the goal of the church is to pursue state ends rather than to pursue the well-being of the Church (for what could possibly be objectionable about trying to restore the thriving church of pre-revolutionary “Holy Russia?)”
You state that the MP does this “because (my emphasis) it views itself as the Third Rome.”
So yes, Peter, I do want quotations from someone who is in a position of authority to back up all of those claims. The fact that you continue to dodge straightforward questions like this indicates that you are unable to do so.
I specifically asked you not to repeat your talking points, and ask you again not to do so. Those of us who are concerned about the EP’s current positions and actions have been very specific about what we are concerned about and have provided quotations that demonstrate that what we are concerned about is indeed the official policy of the EP (and you have never denied that these are official policy). I am happy to discuss your specific criticisms of the MP point by point, and I also have much more I could say about this post of yours, but there is no point to doing so unless you show good faith and intellectual honesty by answering these very clear and straight-forward questions that I and others have asked you repeatedly, in different ways.
So you want its words over its actions? Yes a boxer always telegraphs his punches. If you cannot see it no amount of words will prove it to you. However, here is a WSJ article that quote Putin himself:http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-putin-says-russia-is-exceptional-1401473667
So let’s see the ROC is the biggest Orthodox Church why should it bow to the EP or any other Othodox Hierarch. Why should Russia with its unique destiny?
The ROC pushing its propaganda to call the EP just the Patriarch of Constantinople and to challenge his title.
The ROC uniting itself with the State, even against fellow Orthodox Christian, such as in Georgia.
Etc., and you want chapter and verse? Really?
I have never drank the EP’s kook aid, why would you drink Moscow’s?
Again, I love Russia and what it is doing to check the west, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That goes for everyone, EP, America, the West, ROC and Russia. Trust in Christ not any earthly power, even if it believes it’s the Third Rome.
Peter
Peter, while Jewish-American neo-conservatives are absolutely entitled to their opinions on Russia, I find it curious that in response to my calling you on your assertions about the Russian Orthodox Church and requesting that, yes, I want you to provide chapter and verse, that is all you could come up with to post. I would point out that even in that article, the ROC isn’t even mentioned (unless you count that 16th century letter by a monk who didn’t even have any authority to speak for the Church).
I would suggest that you read the book recently published by Jordanville: “The Making of Holy Russia.” In that excellent study, you will discover that there were no rose-colored glasses or official triumphalism, even in the pre-revolutionary Russian Church.
And as Vladyka Tikhon has correctly noted, any kind of Third Rome ideology has never been the official position of the MP, even at times when it could have been justly claimed — i.e. when the Eastern Patriarchs practically lived in Moscow, constantly looking for money and political support. (See “Russia, Ritual, and Reform.”) Even then, Moscow deferred to them, being willing to experience a major Old Believer schism that ripped the ROC apart, out of deference to Greek practices.
All of the traditional things you claim to defend in Orthodoxy are things that the ROC has been upholding. And yet you slander her and make claims that you can’t substantiate. This grieves me.
The most disturbing thing you wrote was the implication that you can’t catch the MP in the act because “a boxer doesn’t telegraph his punches.” If this is true, then God help us with the EP — it openly states that it is “first without equal” and that it has jurisdiction over every bit of the globe other than the original territory of the ancient patriarchates. It arrogates to itself the sole authority to grant and revoke autocephaly.
If this is what it is willing to take a public stand on — what further agenda is it keeping close to its chest, being careful not to “telegraph it’s punches?”
So the speeches of Patriarch Krill about uniting “The Russian World” is not chapter and verse Third Rome bs? Jewish Neo-cons? Ok, well you believe in the bs of Moscow and I’ll believe in the truth. That Edward is what grieves me. I could say more, but it does not seem that your love affair with Moscow will end anytime soon. I grieve for our Orthodox people who will come to a realization of the truth too late in this scenario, especially in the Ukraine.
Between Moscow and the West fighting in this country countless Ukrainian Orthodox that are looking for help will get nothing but pain. I hope to God you are right Edward and i am wrong about Moscow, but only time will tell.
I bid you peace brother.
Peter
Πέτρῳ,
Perhaps this will help: as Fr. Meyendorff explained it (and trust me he was actually present!), as the silent delegation returned to Kiev from the Council of Ferrara-Florence, they did not actually say, “Constantinople has fallen and Russia is the Third Rome.” What they actually said said was “Constantinople, the Second Rome, has fallen, and a fourth there cannot be.” The millennial character of the statement was merely understood. The only thing I am not joking about is that the Russians did, indeed, rightly or wrongly, see a millennial role falling upon them. Sadly, they never were to understand how to manifest this calling.
In the end, Peter, both the Scriptural & the Patristic minds stand in awe with St. Gregory Palamas at our God Who is so beyond our capturing in His Energy, that we are made fools to imagine we may “contain the uncontainable God”:
And likewise, who would imagine we might contain or limit “Fire coming from Fire,” the Spirit, Who goes wherever He wishes? You, more than most, know to read the Scripture & the Fathers, Peter. The Lord will not abandon the vineyard He has planted with His right hand. Take a break from the “apocalyptic” news of the internet and return to the Scripture and the Fathers!
Peter, the person you provided a link to is at the American Enterprise Institute — about as neo-conservative as you can get, and you can interpret his name for yourself. That doesn’t mean he is wrong, it just isn’t exactly the “chapter and verse” from the MP itself I was asking you to provide. Feel free to give links to the MP speeches to which you refer, and give specific quotations that you believe qualifies as “third Rome BS” (funny how you are unable to talk about this subject of yours without abbreviated scatology — did they teach you to talk like that at Geronda Ephrem’s monasteries about the Russian Church?)
Edward,
You need to understand, any success of the Russian state or Russian Church at uniting the “Russian people” or spreading Orthodoxy in the diaspora is perceived as a threat to the Greek family business, Peter’s omogenia – crass, soulless business concerns mixed with a healthy dose of ethnic arrogance. That is why he projects the “Third Rome” thing onto the ROC. Peter’s “Third Rome” is nothing more than a reborn and revitalized ROC, which is a serious concern for some Greeks. That is why past Greek patriarchs took the side of the communists against the Church of Russia. It also probably has to do with their sycophantic love affair with Rome.
Peter’s comments on this issue are perpetually beneath contempt and irrational. He is a spiritual enemy. “There are wolves within and sheep without.” The only way his comments make sense is if omogenia constitutes his supreme concern. No Russian hiearchs have claimed Third Rome status, if ever, for centuries. No Russian hierarchs are suggesting that Moscow be placed first in the diptychs. And, contrary to the Phanar’s policy of excluding all other Orthodox from evangelizing in the diaspora, Moscow considers the diaspora open for any jurisdiction which has the resources to extend missions. Thus, contrary to Peter’s contention, not only does the MP have no “canon 28” theory, their policy is precisely the opposite – the more the merrier.
But establishing a Greek monopoly in the diaspora (canon 28) is perceived by the Greek leadership as essential for the survival and security of the Phanar. I.e., ethnocentrism and love of power are deliberately considered more important than the gospel. It’s all about the good of the tribe. “Greek Orthodoxy” is simply the religion of the tribe, its ethnic property. Now the ungrateful barbarians converted by it are “trying to take over the show”; i.e., actually following the Great Commission, but in a way not approved by the Phanar and in a way dangerous to the interests of the tribe.
Peter is being consciously dishonest, but of course, if it’s all for the good of the omogenia it’s ok. Typical Phanariot bottom feeding. It’s all quite unspeakably ugly, but par for the course.
Edward,
Peter’s responses have turned to blather. He even ran out of propaganda which caused him to try the “Corbomite maneuver”. If you have nothing, make something up; i.e., bluff.
I think the exchange has become pointless. No doubt the Phanar has made its ludicrous canon 28 claims and no doubt that Moscow has not claimed to be a “Third Rome” anytime in modern history.
Peter simply doesn’t like that the MP and the ROC happen to be doing well at this point in history and that the Phanar can’t even get Halki reopened. It’s tragic, but that is reality. Throwing disinformation at Russia due to its success is really childish. Taking Frosty’s side kind of wraps it up nice and neat.
I actually like MP and the role that Russia is doing to check the West’s global expansion of wickedness. But I don’t have rose colored glasses on as to what the Russian Federation wants as well which is just as exapantionist.
I also know that Communism got their hooks into a great and noble Orthodox Church that has barely had the time to clean itself of that stain and barely able to chatechise it’s own people, so the ROC has fallen back on nationalism to make up the difference which is a big mistake.
The ROC, like all Orthodox Churches, need to realize that the Gospel comes before nationalism, bs concepts like The Third Rome bs, and concentrate on spreading the Gospel of Christ not Russian nationalism.
That’s not blather, that’s the truth. I am sorry that bothers you. Children play at empire building, not adults, and definitely not Christians.
Peter
Misha, I refuse to believe that Peter is beyond reaching. Everything he stands for indicates that he recognizes that as of recent decades, the MP is taking positions — in the face of world opposition — that he agrees with, while the EP continually ignores the things he cares about. Those of us who were in the “old ROCOR” had to come to the gradual conclusion that the MP is the real deal, and that they had, on their own, addressed every objection that the ROCOR previously had to reunification.
The truth is that the ROC has returned to the world stage just in time. Antioch is morally resurgent, and Alexandria is quietly converting Africa by the millions. But only Moscow has the ability to check the EP’s political designs.
Edward thank you for your kind response. I have never and will never turn my back on the ROC, especially ROCOR, as I grew up loving Russian Orthodoxy, and hoped and prayed for their freedom from the Communists. For the most part the MP and the ROC has done that and is doing wonderful things for the Gospel in and around Russia.
I just don’t want the ROC and the MP to make the Gospel Russian as the Greeks have made the Gospel Hellenic. The Gospel needs to be and must be for all, Greek, Russian, etc.
The MP is not there yet. ROCOR however is, but needs to be careful of encroaching fundamentalism. Just like we in the GOAA need to be careful of this. The Geronda Ephraim monasteries are wonderful, but spiritually starved people tend to over eat on their spiritual food, and you now what happens when you over eat.
So looking at the Grand scheme of things my loyalty will always be with the ROC because we are one church, and one faith, and we are stronger together than apart.
However, as much as I disagree with the EP on many issues, I also know he brought in a number of Greek Old Calendarists under Spyridon, and brought in the Monasteries of Father Ephraim. So the EP maybe political, but it is not heretical nor unit as some have argued. Would I love the EP to be as pure as I and others would like it? Yes, but that’s not the way of things right now. Maybe in the future. I believe in prayer and Jesus Christ has not and never will abandon any part of his holy church.
So for now for us here in America we essentially have 3 choices: EP, Antioch, and ROCOR. Antioch is solid, but not big enough to establish us here in the U.S., at least not yet, but I will admit it’s getting there. ROCOR is still too Russian, and currently not too relatable to the American public as a whole. That leave the EP. Is it perfect? No absolutely not. Not by a long shot, but it has what we American Orthodox need and that is political connections, PR, people, and money. That’s why currently it’s the best choice.
Now I left the OCA out not because it can’t handle the job, but because we do need a connection to an overseas Patriarch that can help us get established, known and cemented 8n an Orthodox mindset. Right now the OCA has a number 9 issues it needs to desperately work out. Because of its own “growing” moral heresy it has effectively destroyed it’s own “tomos.” The OCA and the OCA alone has destroyed it’s own dream and vision.
I love the OCA and grew up 8n the days it was strong and fully Orthodox. I hope and pray that both the GOAA and the OCA regain their previous Orthodoxy.
Now as for Russia as a political and secular reality I simply love her! Russia is the only country, and only Orthodox country currently standing up against the wickedness of the west, particularly America. For that I love it and support Russia with my prayers.
What I fear is that the RE is a political entity, and like all political entities it craves power. Once it wins, and I do think Russia will win against the globallists, will Russia withdraw? Will it voluntarily go back to being a Republic? History and human nature tells us otherwise. Yet, on this poin5, I would love to be wrong, so I will wait and see.
For the moment God is using Russia to halt the coming antichrist world system, but you know as well as I do it won’t completely destroy it.
So although this was a great and spirited debate, it’s time now to pray, and to do so together as brothers in the Lord. Forgive me my offenses, and accept my humble apology for both you and Misha.
Thank you for not letting go Edward. I also didn’t let go. We stayed together and that is a blessing.
Peter
“I also know he brought in a number of Greek Old Calendarists under Spyridon . . .”
“In 1998, plagued by moral and financial scandals, two bishops that had broken off from the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians in the United States were re-baptized and re-ordained by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and put under the leadership of the Greek Orthodox Church in the U.S. (which uses the Revised Julian calendar). In exchange, the few priests that went with them were accepted as Orthodox priests, and their churches were allowed to maintain their use of the Julian calendar. Later these parishes were then forced to switch to the Revised Julian calendar although allowed to remain using their more traditional liturgy.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Old_Calendarists
Peter says, “ROCOR… needs to be careful of encroaching fundamentalism.”
What in the world does that mean? All I’ve found in ROCOR is the Orthodox faith, and courage to live it as fully as possible.
It means exactly what it was s opposed to mean Helga. I would also direct you to sister Vassa who is part of ROCOR and who related to me and others at our church that many clegymen in ROCOR disapproved of her you tube videos because she used humor in conjunction with presenting the doctrines of the faith and wanted those videos banned. Also where there was much let’s say consternation in ROCOR over a woman teaching on patristic and dogmatic theology. If you do not believe me I would suggest reaching out to her and emailing her and see what she says to you. Now that’s not everyone in ROCOR, and i am sure ROCOR does not engaged in such things as a whole, but it is there.
That is just one example I guess of ROCOR having the courage to live the Orthodox faith as fully as possible. I suggest you contact her and find out yourself.
As much as the GOAA and the OCA have to be careful of sliding into modernism our brothers and sisters on the other side need to be careful not to slide into fundamentalism. Balance is the key.
Peter
Peter:
TRUE THAT.
Agreed on all counts – except Peter. He seems to be on a fence, unwilling to accept the implications of some of his own convictions. He likes Athonite monasteries but defends the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a counterweight to the MP, actually equating a fictitiously projected claim to “Third Rome” status to Constantinople’s canon 28 mythology.
Surely he must realize that Athos and the Phanar do not get along and that there is a movement in GOARCH to stymie the Athonites here.
He must know that Constantinople’s claim, if taken seriously, would close a multitude of churches in the diaspora which the Phanar would consider too unprofitable to be able to afford a priest. And, as I have pointed out, Moscow does not object to any other Orthodox church expanding into the diaspora as it has. Even on the territory of the OCA (a stance which is included in the tomos it granted!).
Regardless, he’s not my problem.
I disagree on all your counts, except for you Misha. You are a hyper-nationalist that fails to see Moscow’s third Rome bs merging with the Russian Federation, but even with all those failings, and a very black and white view point on the EP/Moscow Chess Match I will not give up on you or Edward. We are our brothers’ keepers and each others conern. I’m not giving up on you. We stay united no matter what.
Peter
Peter, you have failed to produce a single quote from any modern Orthodox hierarch claiming Third Rome status. I have a considerably lower opinion of you than Edward does. I will just leave you and “His All Holiness” to float down the river combatting global warming.
Edward:
What’s the evidence for that?
I watched this.
Hi Michael,
First, my prayers have been with you during this time. Second, always in the Scriptures and Church Fathers. However it’s not be that has apocalyptic thoughs. That would be Moscow and it’s Third Rome bs. It’s crap when the Greeks unite it’s nationalism to the Gospel, it’s cap when Moscow does it as well.
Edward may not like me calling Moscow’ s version of Canon 28 bs, but that’s what it is.
BTW my name is Panagioti. No big deal. Everyone makes the same mistake. Take care of yourself buddy, and you too Edward.
Peter
Peter,
Pardon my error! Both, however, are equally beautiful names. I am grateful for your prayers. Hopefully it concludes soon.
My point was to emphasize the context under which those returning from Florence interpreted the news of the “falls” of Constantinople, first to the Latins, then to the Muslims. Fr. Schmemann noted the histories that recounted “there was silence in Kiev for a week before the Byzantine-placed Metropolitan of Kiev was forced from the city.” The context at the time was not “prideful” in the least, but more of a terror over what to do, whom to turn to, what action to take “because there was no one who remained but Russia as the Third Rome, “and a Fourth there could not be.” But how could it not be cast as millennial? Granted, ultimately anyone who idolizes “Holy Russia” does so to the denial of the hubris that necessitated the cleansing by the blood of the New Martyrs, but nevertheless, the millennial character of the idea of the “Third Rome” was a legitimate notion at the time of the fall of Constantinople.
Hi Michael,
Yes, I would agree with what you said. I guess I come at this from a purest point of view. I want to offer the Gospel and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ free and clear of any national, political or cultural entanglements. I also want to present and keep a very simple version of the Faith that is to be lived in the spirit and not by rules and regulation (I.e. Fundamentalism) or some devolved form of social justice or liberation theology (i.e. Modernism)
Both the EP and MP have sinned IMHO in this regard and the faith that is being offered is either a Nationalistic Faith or a Fundamentalist Faith, but simply the Orthodox Faith. That has always been my worry with the EP, GOAA and OCA (Modernism) and with the MP, ROC and ROCOR (Fundamentalism).
I want what you want to read and abide in the scriptures, the writings and lives of the Church Father and Mothers, participate in and experience the true worship of God in the Divine Liturgy and practice Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving not just during Lent by always.
So when all this other stuff (Canon this, Foreign Bishops that, etc.) gets in the way of that I get touchy as it destroys our unity and witness of the Gospel not to mention our own spiritual grown in Jesus Christ.
Take Michael and I will continue to keep you in my prayers and please keep me and my family in ours.
Peter
Peter,
No one has any objection to Constantinople uniting the Greeks. What many do have an objection to is Constantinople claiming the entire diaspora as its exclusive jurisdiction (canon 28). No other patriarchate has done that and I defy you to show otherwise…
Russia is doing it in its very actions I deny you to show me it is not.
Peter
Ah, to prove a negative?
Well, GOARCH is the largest Orthodox church in America. Russia seems to have no problem with that. The MP in its tomos to the OCA limited its jurisdiction to those clerics, laity and parishes that were currently in the Metropolia or those which would later chose to join it. Russia even has ROCOR here so they certainly do not consider the OCA to have exclusive jurisdiction in the US.
Of course the Phanar has an archdiocese in Australia. But the MP has never opposed it. Nor has the MP opposed the Phanar’s presence in Western Europe. Moscow has reclaimed some of its former churches, but that is all.
Really, there is no evidence whatsoever that Moscow is claiming exclusive jurisdiction in the diaspora. But that is the very nature of the Phanar’s canon 28 claims.
Do you even have any idea what we are talking about here, Peter? Sometimes you write as if you have no clue at all.
Father,
I appreciate the “numbers game,” but in all fairness it is very misleading. I grew up in the GOA, and in my experience, the “numbers game” is played by so many Orthodox parishes. Most of my Greek-American family members have not been to church in years, even if they still acknowledge that I celebrate “Greek Easter.” Often these people are erroneously counted in the 474,500, to make the numbers “look good.” If you are baptized as an infant but then vocally denounce the faith as an adult, should you still be counted in these numbers?
While I know there are good GOA parishes out there, I gave up on the GOA years ago because my Orthodox identity was much more important to me than my ethnic heritage and the country where some of my grandparents were born. As a struggling 20-something I needed depth in my faith. I needed vespers, at least weekly. None of the local GOA parishes offered vespers. I discovered in my college years that yes, Orthodoxy does have and does encourage confession. Somehow confession was never mentioned at all when I was a kid growing up in the GOA, and no one whom I knew at church ever went to confession. What I needed was deep Orthodox faith — one that calls one to struggle, to learn how to suffer, how to love. I’m sure that some GOA parishes offer this, but I have never found one.
There is a wonderful GOA monastery near my home (one of the ones established by the Elder Ephraim — thanks be to God!), and one of the monastics commented to me that there are “strange things” going on in the upper leadership of the GOA and of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. One thing he mentioned is that Patriarch Bartholomew is very interested in unity with the Roman Catholic Church. This monastic says he “thinks it will happen.” Obviously this would be great if the Roman Catholic Church would become Orthodox once again, but I think we all agree there’s about a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening.
Bottom line is that I found the spiritual depth that I had been hungering for in churches of other jurisdictions, in various locales as work has taken me across America — OCA, Antiochian, ROCOR. Every jurisdiction has its own “issues” of course, but why any of the venerable jurisdictions in America would want to come under the Patr. of Constantinople is beyond me.
More than half of the world’s Orthodox Christians are in the Patriarchate of Moscow. Numerically, the earthly worldwide leader/spokesman of/for Orthodoxy is, of course, the Patriarch of Moscow (Jesus Christ has always been and will always be the true head of the Church). This monastic with whom I spoke says that he thinks the shenanigans of the Patr. of Constantinople will trigger a schism within Orthodoxy. So many of Constantinople’s actions in the past century — beginning with the “enforcement” of the new calendar by a masonic Patriarch (and how was the “new calendar” for the spiritual benefit of the faithful?) — are of questionable spiritual benefit.
Rather than a “number” like 474,500, I propose that these questions might be better measures of the strength of any given jurisdiction:
–what percentage of the faithful have a regular discipline of confession and of Holy Communion?
–what percentage of the faithful tithe to their local parish?
–how active is a jurisdiction’s evangelization and missions program?
–how active is a jurisdiction in supporting the poor, hungry, and suffering?
Father, it is important to face the reality that the leader of traditional Orthodox Christian faith has not been the Patr. of Constantinople for years, all “First among Equals” aside. Thank God that Fr Patrick (both Fr Patricks, that is) have the cajones to proclaim reality publicly.
Thank God that we all have unity of faith in America (at least for now). Administrative unity will come with time, but probably not in any of our lifetimes. But this talk of unity “under Constantinople or not at all” is for the birds.
Well all I can say Engaged Observer is that was your experience that was never mine. Mine was a depth of faith given to me by my mother, and allowed to grow to full maturity in the GOAA that to this day has never waived or broken under immense pressure from the world.
Also, I would be very wary of your praise of the MP as his is a numbers game as well, “How many really know the Orthodox faith after over 70 years of atheism? Even people in the ROC would tell you its not that many. The MP also has been pushing an agenda of the Glorious Third Rome BS that has also threatened schism in Moscow’s pursuit of the title of EP. To paraphrase a Bush-ism “If you are not with Moscow you are with the heathen.” Moscow as well as the EP has a lot to answer for.
What we need is a simple return to Orthodoxy and guess what? You can find that in any, ANY Orthodox Church, but you need to find it. That’s all I’m saying. I am glad you did.
Peter
Peter,
A strong faith given to one by his/her mother is indeed a blessing. But many of us do not or did not have that while growing up. I did not, which, as you note, may be a factor in my experiences.
I’d also add that for 99+% of those whom we are trying to reach — the non-Orthodox American populace — hardly any of them have Orthodox mothers who impart the faith to them, either.
Thus, our churches in America cannot be predicated on the assumption of having a pious/faithful Orthodox mom. If one has this, then yes, it seems to be one of the best blessings that God can give you. Yet, many Orthodox children have this and they still reject the faith in adulthood.
I agree. Your statement is correct, but that goes for All jurisdictions not just the GOAA. Further, I would conceded the point that the GOAA is more “secular” minded than say a ROCOR church which definitely is not, but the one and the same Orthodox Faith can be found in either jurisdictions. But yes, I would agree with you that it depends on the individual.
Peter
“The MP also has been pushing an agenda of the Glorious Third Rome BS that has also threatened schism in Moscow’s pursuit of the title of EP.”
This is an outright, bald-faced, willful lie…
Misha, Peter, et al:
I believe we are missing the main point here. And that (to my mind) is: what if a resurgent, Christianized Russia is indeed the Third Rome? What if St Philotheus of Pskov’s prophecy is correct?
I’m not concerned about the order of the Dyptichs as much as I am about the geo-political reality on the ground, especially if it is God-ordered. We may not like the present RF regime any more than we like the increasingly imperial American presidency but we must be open to the possibility that God is re-ordering civilization or rather, allowing the reemergence of Christendom to occur.
As an American, this is hurtful for me to say this, but unless there is a massive and widespread repentance for our sins –and worse–for our determination to cram them down the throats of other cultures, we will go the way of Babylon.
I agree with you George. The only thing is that if that end up being the case, and may God’s will be done, then it is the MP’s version of Canon 28 wherein he will gain control of the Orthodox Diaspora. Look at how he is positioning himself with the American Evangelicals. He is basically setting himself up not only as the “First Among Equals” within Orthodoxy, but setting himself up as the De Facto leader of ALL Christians!
I agree with you that only Russia right now is protecting and supporting Christians in the Middle East and is standing up for Christian morality, but does this have a price? Is there a cost associated with this? That is what worries me.
The Communists did not just disappear they simply became another shade of socialist, and the Empirical aims of Russia, Soviet or not, I believe are still there. so is this God’s plan or is this a very well crafted and played plan on the part of the Russian Federation to re-cast itself and to reclaim its former superpower (i.e. Empirical) glory? That part I do not know, and will have to wait and see.
However, let’s all be honest the MP is doing the exact same thing the EP is doing in attempting to obtain jurisdictional control over diaspora Orthodox Churches. To believe otherwise is wrong. The real Canon 28 issue is with Moscow. The EP’s intentions are known are the MP’s?
Peter A. Papoutsis
“However, let’s all be honest the MP is doing the exact same thing the EP is doing in attempting to obtain jurisdictional control over diaspora Orthodox Churches. To believe otherwise is wrong. The real Canon 28 issue is with Moscow. The EP’s intentions are known are the MP’s?”
Sadly, it appears that Peter is committed to his lies. He has produced nothing whatsoever that suggests that the MP is claiming exclusive jurisdiction in the diaspora. It is a matter of record that the Phanar has done so. His attempt to drag the MP down to the Phanar’s level has and will fail, of course.
Pathetic and impervious to reason. “Omogenia ueber alles.” Catchy, isn’t it?
George,
“Third Rome” is a kind of loaded term. Constantinople was given the title “New Rome” as the new capital of the Roman Empire, second in honor after Rome itself. For historical reasons, “New Rome” morphed into “leader of the Orthodox world” and the self-arrogated title, “Ecumenical Patriarch”.
Why repeat the Phanar’s mistakes? Seriously, for a see as small and physically insignificant as Constantinople, once the seat of the Christian Empire, to use the term “New Rome” simply provokes laughter, or lip biting feats of feigned respect. I see no reason for Moscow to step into that role and claim to be “Third Rome”.
Also, claiming “Third Rome” status could be considered an appeal to change the diptychs to list Moscow first. Yet the diptychs are irrelevant for any practical purpose. Why would one bother with this? No collective decision can be taken on the part of the Orthodox without Moscow’s consent as the largest, by far, of the Orthodox churches. The reason Moscow does not claim “Third Rome” status, IMHO, is that it would yield them nothing whatsoever and would beg recognition on the part of the rest of the Orthodox world, some of whom might go along and some might not. “Do not demand what you cannot take.”
Moscow could develop and emerge as a leader of traditional Christianity. They should do that and leave pretension to the Phanar. They handle it so well (pause for laughter).
However, I am not quite as hopeful as you are regarding the future of Russia. I might be if, after the Putin period or as soon as public opinion would allow, they chose to resume the monarchial/imperial form of government, at least in some form. It might not be an absolute autocracy like the tsars enjoyed up until about 1905, but it should be a very strong executive no longer dependent upon the passions of the mobs. As it is now, the good to which Russia aspires is largely dependent on the personality of Vladimir Putin. This is not exactly ideal. In its own way, the “sovereign democracy” he founded has quelled some of the problems the Church Fathers found with “polyarchy”; i.e., democracy and its inherent factionalism. Essentially, he has relatively free elections (though these are criticized due to the “influence of the Presidency and administrative apparatus”, the elections results mirror independent public opinion polls) but uses a large government media presence to shape public opinion. This creates a sense of national purpose and diminishes factionalism, about the scourge of which the Fathers warned us.
Yet would Medvedev or any other potential successor be as adept? God only knows. Recall, Putin’s post in the KGB in East Germany was in the propaganda/media directorate. He knows how Western propaganda works and, within his media reach, is simply better at it than Voice of America, NGO’s, etc.
However, if government dominance over a preponderance of the media became state policy under a monarchial form of government, then succession and the acumen of the particular ruler would be less of a wild card.
I give up. I’m done. Enjoy the nonsense.
Peter
St. Gregory said it best:
“The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games.”
And the “nonsense” to which you refer is history in the making.
So now Moscow is playing her games? Got it.
Peter
George, you are exactly on target on every point. These are similar to the kinds of questions I ask myself. We spend so much time trying to analyze whether this or that ruler has nefarious plans and forget that our human free will doesn’t change the fact that God still has some interaction with his creation.
Fr. John Romanides wrote eloquently about earthly rulers choosing to give Christianity a privileged position in their lands because it was (I paraphrase) like a spiritual public health measure — they saw that it was healthy for their people and country. The privileged position that Orthodoxy currently holds in Russia and certain other countries doesn’t necessarily mean the reemergence of Christendom, but it is how Christendom arose in the first place. That particular fact is hardly able to be disputed.
As to Russia as the Third Rome, you make an excellent point — while others might fixate on whether there are dastardly Russians who are scheming to become a Third Rome, that really isn’t how the whole idea of the Third Rome ever emerged. It is an undisputed fact that when the ancient patriarchates fell under Muslim rule, Russia remained as the only large nation (and later, empire) that had Orthodoxy as its state religion. Right up to the revolution, the tsars were supporting the eastern patriarchates financially and promoting extensive missionary activities across the vast Asian continent. It really didn’t matter whether anyone believed that there was some sort of eschatological “Third Rome” idea or not. It was a matter of the last man left standing.
As MS pointed out, the idea of “a 4th there will not be” wasn’t triumphalist or mystical goo-goo, it was a clear-eyed assessment that with Constantinople gone, if Rus fell, there was literally no other Orthodox nation or people of size left to fill this role.
At the time of the Russian revolution (really, it started after the 1905 Paschal edict, truth to be told), the Russian Church pivoted swiftly to adjust to life without state protection. Russian Orthodox leaders of the time specifically called the faithful to remembrance that there was a time, before Constantine, in which the Church survived and even grew — not only without state protection, but in the face of persecution. If what I hear in ROCOR circles is any indication, there is much more caution and circumspection on the part of the Russian hierarchy about their current privileges position in Russian society than Russia haters would like to portray.
There is a clear-eyed acknowledgement that it may not last, and that they need to work as quickly as they can to do as much as they can during this window of opportunity. Russia haters will point out what has not been accomplished in the last 20 years, but as Misha intimates, it seems that their successes seem to bring out at least as much hostility as do their putative failures.
One thing I will say about “Third Rome” though, George, though I am weary of the term and subject:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires#All_empires_at_their_greatest_extent
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Russian_Federation
If the figures at these sites are accurate, the largest empire on earth ever was the British Empire, second was the Mongol Empire, and third was the Russian Empire [fourth being the Soviet Union]. The present day Russian Federation would qualify as the sixth largest empire in history on this list, were it an empire.
Rome is number 30. Byzantium is number 50.
In terms of population, Rome had about 70 million, Byzantium 30 million.
No that’s the truth.
Peter
Peter, I’m still waiting for documentation of your “truth” about the MP “pushing an agenda of the Glorious Third Rome BS” as well as documentation of “Moscow’s pursuit of the title of EP.”
If something is true, it should be easy for you to document it.
And are you really incapable of talking about fellow Orthodox Christians without using foul language, Peter? Is your hatred for Russia really that deep? I’m not going to let this point drop, so you might as well respond to it while you’re looking for documentation that Moscow is pursuing the title of EP and that the MP has a “Glorious Third Rome” agenda.
Hi Edward,
Ok i won’t drop it either. What foul language did I use? I try very hard not to use foul language and attempt to engage in respectful, albeit, spirited manner. I do not believe I called you and offensive names. I may have use the word delusional with Misha, but if I have a greatly apologize to you.
As for hateful I would greatly disagree as I love all parts of the Church, but take great exception when the Russian omogenia and Russiophiles conflate nationalist aims with those of the Gospel. I would never and have never allowed the GOAA to get away with that why would I let the ROC off the hook?
In any event let me get back and I will send you want I have found. Take care Edward.
Peter
Finally, all of this is to make the point that:
Equating Russia and Orthodoxy is theologically troubling to the extent that it reduces Christianity to a cultural identity and fails to recognize it as a faith that rests on a personal existential encounter with the Gospel. – Orthodox Resurgence: Civil Religion in Russia by John P. Burgess
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary May 2009.
This can equally apply to Greeks, Serbs, Arabs, etc. Ok that’s it for now. If you want more let me know. Take care Edward.
Peter
But no one equates Russia with Orthodoxy. That is in your head, Peter. As is a Russian “omogenia”. It is nothing more than a projection of the aspiration of the Greeks onto Russia out of jealousy of what they erroneously perceive to be the significance of the situation. This is because they are stuck in the glory days of Constantinople and see everything through that archaic lens.
The world where old “Rome”, “New Rome” and even “Third Rome” carry any weight is long dead and gone.
OK Peter, you gave me a reference to a book I don’t own. You need to provide quotations from that book about the Church pushing Third Rome male bovine excrement, and quotations about Church leaders pushing for the title of EP for the Patriarch of Moscow.
I will model proper intellectually honest behavior for you. Here is a link to an article written by that same author, John Burgess, written 5 years after the book you cite. He portrays what all of us have seen: a Church struggling to re-Christianize Russia in the wake of unimaginable persecution. He makes it clear, as someone who has lived and taught there extensively, that the Church’s priority is bringing people to Christ. He doesn’t minimize the warts the difficulties, the ways that what has done has fallen short of what is needed, the temptations, and the obstacles in the post-Soviet mindset. But unlike you, he gives credit where credit is due, and he portrays a Church whose goals are clearly spiritual.
And here is a direct quotation from him:
Orthodox leaders regularly affirm the constitution’s separation of Church and state. They know that accommodation to state interests can destroy the spiritual freedom of the Church, as happened when Peter the Great abolished the patriarchate and effectively made the Church a department of the state—and as happened again under communism. Moreover, re-Christianization does not require every Russian to become Orthodox. The Church recognizes that Russia is composed of many different ethnic and religious groups, and that individuals should be free in matters of religion. A coerced faith is no faith at all.
OK Peter, you gave me a reference to a book I don’t own. You need to provide quotations from that book about the Church pushing Third Rome male bovine excrement, and quotations about Church leaders pushing for the title of EP for the Patriarch of Moscow.
I will model proper intellectually honest behavior for you. Here is a link to an article written by that same author, John Burgess, written 5 years after the book you cite. He portrays what all of us have seen: a Church struggling to re-Christianize Russia in the wake of unimaginable persecution. He makes it clear, as someone who has lived and taught there extensively, that the Church’s priority is bringing people to Christ. He doesn’t minimize the warts the difficulties, the ways that what has done has fallen short of what is needed, the temptations, and the obstacles in the post-Soviet mindset. But unlike you, he gives credit where credit is due, and he portrays a Church whose goals are clearly spiritual.
And here is a direct quotation from him:
Orthodox leaders regularly affirm the constitution’s separation of Church and state. They know that accommodation to state interests can destroy the spiritual freedom of the Church, as happened when Peter the Great abolished the patriarchate and effectively made the Church a department of the state—and as happened again under communism. Moreover, re-Christianization does not require every Russian to become Orthodox. The Church recognizes that Russia is composed of many different ethnic and religious groups, and that individuals should be free in matters of religion. A coerced faith is no faith at all.
Oh Peter, the depths!!!
I found your article:
http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1202&context=ree
The man is upset that Orthodoxy is making a comeback because he wants Protestants to be able to evangelize in Russia and he sees Orthodoxy as an impediment. Also, as a Protestant, he believes in separation of church and state and considers this a Christian norm, as he does “human rights” and “international peace and justice”. I wonder what he means by that?
* * *
“In many Russians’ minds, to be Russian is to be Orthodox. They would argue that Orthodoxy is an essential part of Russian ethnic identity. Still influenced by Slavophile ideas of the nineteenth century, many ethnic Russians see Catholicism and Protestantism as Western imports that have belonged historically to their invaders from abroad (Catholic Poles, Protestant Swedes or Germans).”
* * *
This is true in a sense. But that does not mean that they equate Orthodoxy with Russia. That is a very different thing. Russians know that there are Greeks, Serbians and even Americans who are Orthodox. And they are right that these groups are invaders. What they wish to do is conquer Russians souls for heresy.
* * *
“Second, equating Russia and Orthodoxy is theologically troubling to the extent that it
underwrites Russian xenophobia. Russian Catholics and Protestants continue to suffer under a general social (and Orthodox) suspicion of being financed and used by Western political interests. They often have difficulty in getting building permits or holding public rallies or evangelistic campaigns. Aleksi and Kirill have been careful in their public statements to call for religious toleration and to honor the leaders of the other Christian groups, but the Orthodox Church has not yet embraced a vigorous social pluralism that would recognize the necessary and legitimate place of these groups in contemporary Russian society.
Third, equating Russia and Orthodoxy is theologically troubling to the extent that it reduces Christianity to a cultural identity and fails to recognize it as a faith that rests on a personal existential encounter with the gospel. [That was the part you quoted, here’s the rest:] Whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant, Christians can surely agree that the heart of their religion is in the individual personal conviction of salvation by Gods’ work in Jesus Christ and God’s call into a new way of life in communion with the risen Lord. The priests with whom I spoke all emphasized that the most pressing need before the Russian Orthodox Church today was education so that people would really know the faith and commit themselves to the life and work of the church.”
* * *
John P. Burgess, Professor of Systematic Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, devoted a year’s sabbatical (2004-05) to immersing himself and his family in the Orthodox Church in St. Petersburg. This paper was presented to the American Theological Society on March 12, 2009. Before coming to PTS he had served in the Office of Theology and Worship in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) And in 1984-85 had spent a year at the Protestant Seminary in East Berlin, GDR. A shorter version of this essay appeared in The Christian Century.
You see, PTS is the graduate theological seminary of the Presbyterian Church (USA). In case you don’t know who they are:
https://www.pcusa.org/news/2015/3/17/presbyterian-church-us-approves-marriage-amendment/
Later in the same article he writes:
“This mythology [he refers to “Third Rome”] has come back to life in post-Soviet Russia. On September 1, 2004, just a few weeks after my family’s arrival in St. Petersburg, the Russian school year was starting up. September 1 in Russia is not just another day of the year. Children dress up in their best clothes. Orthodox churches offer special prayers and blessings for their safety and success, and parents accompany them to school. But on this September 1, Chechen rebels took hundreds of children and their parents and teachers hostage at school in Beslan in the Russian republic of North Ossetia. When Russian interior troops stormed the building two days later, more than 300 people, including 186 children, died. As all Russia mourned these events, I watched Russian television broadcast footage of President Putin alone in a chapel in the Kremlin with an Orthodox priest saying prayers for Beslan’s dead. The priest again and again swung his censer over the table tray with a crucifix and candles that commemorated the victims. Then the camera panned in close, as Putin, wearing a tired grim look, crossed himself and bowed. It seems to me that in that moment, Putin was not simply identifying himself as an Orthodox believer and not simply appealing to Orthodoxy as a source of social unity in the midst of national tragedy. Rather, he was consciously or unconsciously evoking this deep symbolic mythology in the Russian national psyche that places Christian (Orthodox) Russia on one side and godless barbarian hordes on the other.” [embolding added]
* * *
So by simply looking at Putin hearing a panykhida, the author has divined the rise of the “Third Rome”, much like Peter divined the MP’s revival of “Third Rome” by reading the musings of a priest not in communion with the MP at the time he wrote about it.
and this:
“It is not yet clear whether the Russian Orthodox Church has the theological and spiritual resources to speak a critical word to the state and to remind the state of its responsibility to guarantee individual rights and foster international peace and justice.”
[embolding added]
* * *
Now, all of his reasoning makes perfect sense if you are an American Protestant ignorant of Orthodoxy who wants to convert Russians. But when a Greek Orthodox believer quotes him . . . well, I don’t know what to say other than Byzantine Episcopalianism has indeed taken its toll.
Playing dumb doesn’t become you Peter. If you haven’t noticed that you refer to male bovine excrement in every single post (20-30 times minimum), linking it explictly to what you claim is the Russian Chutch”s official policy, then your hatred is deep indeed. Try spelling out what BS stands for and using the word repeatedly in front of a few English speaking yiayias at church, and see whether they think it is foul language.
If you were fresh off the boat and we’re just learning English, I’d cut you some slack. Or if you used it once in a fit of pique. But you use it repeatedly and deliberately.
Edward,
First what is the concept of the Third Rome in relation to Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church?
The idea of Moscow being the Third Rome was popular since the early Russian Tsars. This idea of Moscow and/or Russia being the Third Rome crystallized with a panegyric letter composed by the Russian elder Philoteus in 1510 to the Grand Duke Basil III, which proclaimed, “Two Romes have fallen. The third stands. And there will not be a fourth. No one will replace your Christian Tsardom!”
Second, what is the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in regards to America? Here are the words of the late great Patriarch Tikhon on pp. 68-70 of the Russian American Messenger in 1905:
‘As to the see of North America, it ought to be made into an Exarchate of the Russian Church. The fact is that this see is composed not only of different nationalities, but also of different Orthodox Churches, each of which, though one in faith, has its peculiarities of canonical order, ritual and parish life. These peculiarities are dear to them and perfectly tolerable from the general Orthodox point of view. This is why we do not consider that we have the right to interfere in the national character of the Churches in this country and indeed we try to preserve it, giving each one a chance to be governed directly by heads of the same nationality….In short, it is possible that in America there will be formed an entire Exarchate of national Orthodox Churches with their own bishops, whose Exarch is to be to the Russian Archbishop.
In his own field of work each of these bishops is to be independent, but the affairs which concern the American Church in general are to be decided by a General Council, presided over by the Russian Archbishop. Through him will be preserved the connection of the Orthodox Church of America with the Church of all the Russians [sic!] and a degree of dependence of the former on the latter. We also must keep in view that, compared with the life in the old country, life in America has its peculiarities, with which the local Orthodox Church is obliged to count, and that consequently that it ought to be allowed to be more autonomous than other Metropolitan districts of Russia’.
Now to be fair that was 1905, but what about today?
Fr. Andrew Phillip, a Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia priest in June 29, 2009 stated in ROCOR Studies the following for not only America, but for Europe and Australia in regards to Patriarch Tikhon’s above quote:
Here was and is the vision of the structure for unity, a Diaspora united under the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is not because it is ‘Russian’ or because ‘Russians’ are better than other Orthodox. We full well know from our experience that this is not the case. I listen to Russian confessions. We can be united under the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church is because the Russian Orthodox Church, with its territory covering over one seventh of the globe before the Revolution, was and still is the only Local Orthodox Church with the multinational and multilingual culture, missionary experience, background and infrastructure to be able to provide such a structure for unity. The Diaspora mess only happened because the Russian Church was enslaved and paralysed by Communism for most of the 20th century. It is now for the Russian Church to rise to the challenge, to meet its responsibilities, as it was meeting them before 1917. Why else did God give Russians one seventh of the planet to govern? It was so that they could use it wisely for the Church. (PAP – well that’s an interesting statement! Basically screams Third Rome without actually using the term).
There should be One (Russian Orthodox founded – nobody else will do it) Metropolia of Europe. Within such a Metropolia, each of the six Non-East Slav groups (Romanian, Greek, Serb, Bulgarian, Arab, Georgian) should have its own Deanery or Diocese, with a Dean or Bishop of its particular nationality, united under a Metropolitan. Each group must enter into the Metropolia structure voluntarily, free to keep its ties with its Mother-Church. This is the solution to the jurisdictional and administrative chaos in the twenty-one countries of Western and Central Europe – Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain, Holland, Belgium, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, Ireland, Norway, Luxembourg, Iceland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco: An Orthodox Metropolia of Europe.
Furthermore, there needs to be One (Russian Orthodox founded – nobody else will do it) Metropolia of the Americas. The OCA experiment, whatever its merits, has not worked. It was a child of its time and of a conformist immigrant generation with its psychological and sociological complexes, which excluded others of a more traditional Orthodoxy. (PAP – sorry OCA your out!). The OCA came out of the Cold War, with its all too human limitations. In the words of its present head, Metr Jonah, at its recent Conference on 20 June 2009: ‘The OCA’s charter and vocation is for it to disappear’. (PAP – Bye, Bye Metropolitan Jonah. We know how that story ended). In other words, those in the OCA who are beginning to return to the Orthodox Tradition have at last understood that the OCA has only ever been a half-way house, a necessary stage or means to the formation of a Local Regional Church, not an idol, not an end in itself.
One of the multiple reasons for the OCA’s problems is that it was largely shaped by the Protestant cultural background and mentality of the USA and Canada. The Roman Catholic background of the third North American country, Mexico, as well as Central America and South America would help it develop. Too narrow a cultural background can lead to local nationalism. We have seen it not only in a certain US/Protestant nationalism in parts of the OCA, but also in Western Europe, where French/Roman Catholic nationalism (in the Paris Jurisdiction) and Anglican nationalism in the old Sourozh Diocese and the Antiochian Deanery have weakened Church unity.
Furthermore, there also needs to be One (Russian Orthodox founded – nobody else will do it) Metropolia of Australasia. This would cover not only Australia and New Zealand, but missionary territories such as Indonesia, South Korea, Indo-China, India, Pakistan, Nepal etc. (The remaining territories in the world, not so far mentioned, are Africa, which is the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and China and Japan, which depend on the Moscow Patriarchate directly).
In other words, the best days of ROCOR, to become the true and complete Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, are before us. ROCOR is to become a Church of Three Metropolias. (PAP – Remember ROCOR and the MP/ROC united in 2007 and here is ROCOR priest saying this in 2009! Did Moscow censure him? I think not!) We live in global times. Now, at last, ROCOR in three Regional Orthodox Metropolias has the potential of a global Church acting locally, working together with others, eventually helping and preparing, with the support of Moscow, to set up new Regional Orthodox Churches. For, by the grace of God, one day, even if in the distant future, these Metropolias will be able to receive a mature, not premature and immature, autocephaly, in the Americas, in Europe and in Australasia. (PAP – Yes, thank God for that! The EP is basically saying this on the Canon 28 side, but he’s bad, while ROCOR sais this, with the tacit approval of Moscow because he was never censured from what I could find, is Good! Hence the Russian version of Canon 28!)
Anyway, let’s move on shall we?
From ‘The Saints of Russia and the Universality of Orthodoxy’, November 1993, Pp. 267 and 272 in ‘Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition’ it states:
MOSCOW THE THIRD ROME?
Russia’s inner meaning and calling, the very purpose of her existence, her God-given destiny, is to gather the peoples of the world together, each with its own personality and particularity and culture, into the Church of Christ…The Soviet State exported its faith to the four corners of the earth. We might suppose that had Russia remained faithful to Christ, she would have exported another faith to those four corners. Instead of sending kalashnikovs to Africa and India, China and Central America, to Afghanistan and Vietnam, to Cuba and Korea, she would have sent Orthodox missionaries. She would not have translated the works of Lenin into a hundred tongues, but the service-books of the Church of Christ.
The above quote is used again by Fr. Andrew Phillips the previously mentioned ROCOR priest who just recently went on to say in the same article that used the above quote:
As mere observers, it is not possible to predict what will actually happen. Indeed the participants themselves do not know exactly the timescales ahead. But perhaps it is already possible to see that the Russian Orthodox Church is now at last beginning to start again where it was forced to leave off in 1917. After a tragic interruption of some three generations owing to savage atheist persecution, new worldwide perspectives are now opening up. Moscow is becoming a global Church, the dream of Moscow the Third Rome and Second Jerusalem is perhaps now less unreal. We await further events, but we must never forget the fates of both the First Rome and the Second Rome.
The First Rome lost its way because it forgot its martyrs and turned itself into a Caesaropapist State. The Second Rome lost its way because it forgot its Confessors and was willing to exchange its destiny of humility for a betrayal of the Faith. The Third Rome must do neither. In the long term it must found new Local Churches outside Russia, strengthening the Confederal, Trinitarian nature of the Family of Local Orthodox Churches, Unity in Diversity. A unified Russian Church of the Martyrs (inside Russia) and of the Confessors (outside Russia), a Church of Martyrdom and Confessordom, may be now the only bulwark in this world against the coming of Anti-Christ. (PAP – Wow that’s pretty strong! Did Moscow Censure him for saying this? Still can’t find it).
And now ye know what witholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work. (2 Thess. 2, 6-7).
Priest Andrew Phillips,
Seekings House,
Felixstowe,
England
30 Nov/13 December
Holy Apostle Andrew the First-Called
Oh btw who is this Fr. Phillips anyway? Well:
Fr Andrew was one of the ten speakers at the Fourth All-Diaspora Council in San Francisco in 2006, and was present at the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion between the two parts of the Russian Church in Moscow in 2007. In May 2012, at a Sunday Liturgy in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow he was awarded a jewelled Patriarchal cross by His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill (Gundyayev) for his lifelong services to the Russian Orthodox Church and struggles for Her unity, despite forty years of intimidation, including a death-threat that he was to receive in 2015. (PAP – He’s the “Orthodox England website guy as well. It seems he’s pretty close with the Patriarch of Moscow. He’s pushing THIRD ROME! If this is NOT what the MP wants why is he so tight with Moscow and Moscow hasn’t told him to shut up? I wonder).
Let’s continue on our road to Third Rome.
Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk on October 18, 2014 stated in The Theology of Freedom. Christianity and Secular Power: From the Edict of Milan to the Present:
From events of 1700 years ago I would like now to turn to events of the recent past and tell you about how the Edict of Milan was marked in the Russian Orthodox Church, which I represent and which last year celebrated another important jubilee – the 1025th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus. The coincidence of the two jubilees obliged us to think about the historical path of the Church, to reflect upon an event of antiquity which laid the foundation of a new Christian civilization, yet at the same time to evaluate too our own recent history.
That which we have experienced in the last quarter of a century and by which we continue to live today we can with confidence call the ‘second Baptism of Rus’. Indeed, as we know, Rus was baptized in 988 by the Holy Prince Vladimir in the waters of the River Dniepr. It was then there was begun the journey of salvation by the Christian faith (in its Byzantine Orthodox variant) throughout the towns and villages of Holy Rus. And Holy Rus is the historical expanse which unites present-day Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia. Three Slavic peoples, now divided by state borders, once comprised a single people and have had a common history for more than a thousand years. Indeed, Holy Rus remains today in the form of the spiritual expanse which unites the Russian Orthodox Church, encapsulating both Ukraine and Russia and Byelorussia and a number of other countries. (PAP – number of other countries? Hmmm?)
The Metropolitan goes on to say:
In our time the Church and her sacred Tradition have become a revelation for our nation. A whole generation of people torn from the Church has again discovered faith. The situation in which we found ourselves – the situation of having to discover a forgotten Tradition, the churching of society, (PAP – Just Russian Society or society in general?) the rebirth of the Church – has confronted us with the task of grasping what the Christian Tradition with a capital letter is and who are we within that Tradition. Moreover, acquaintance with the history of Christian civilization, with the history of the Church, has revealed to us an understanding of the role of the Church in completely different periods of both prosperity and persecution, mistakes and trials. The Church never knew this in the era of Constantine when she was only taking her first steps as an institution recognized by society.
We can say today that the Church over the past seventeen centuries has become more mature, more experienced. The historical experience of the Church does not allow us, in receiving freedom, not to dispose of that freedom with intelligence. Today great wisdom is required of the Church because we (PAP – Russia) have been given a historical chance which we have no right to let slip. By the 1990s the Church in Russia spoke loudly of freedom and responsibility as two absolute values, without the interaction of which it was impossible to build a just society. Today such thoughts all the more frequently are to be expressed from the mouths of statesmen. Today the Church and state in Russia, as well as in some countries in the post-Soviet expanse, are able to speak with a single voice and express a united position.
Now let’s take a break and talk about the Russian omogenia for a moment. This is what President Putin had to say on 5 November 2015, at the 5th World Congress of Compatriots Living Abroad:
In his address to the participants in the Congress’s plenary session, the President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Vladimir Putin, noted that the Russian Orthodox Church was playing “an ever-greater role in expanding humanitarian ties between our compatriots and Russia.” The President said, “The Russian expatriate community has always united people of different ethnicities and faith,” and today they are acting together to meet the challenges facing our country.
Mr. Putin emphasized the necessity to promote abroad education in the Russian language. According to the President, a concept for Russian schools abroad has been already worked out. “The purpose of such schools is to promote national methods of teaching and education, of developmental teaching, to assist in the study of the Russian language and of subjects that have to do with Russia, such as this country’s history and geography, the history of its culture and the arts. It is clear that we need to make more efficient use of extracurricular educational establishments, such as Sunday schools of the Russian Orthodox Church and educational centres of our other religions, to set up courses and groups to study Russian.”
What about the ROC? What did it have to say at this time at the SAME CONFERENCE?
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia also addressed the participants in the forum. As His Holiness noted, the centuries-old history of Russia demonstrates clearly that the ability to overcome divisions and act together in the face of external and internal challenges has always been one the essential characteristics of our people. “The internal unity is a key opening the doors of many possibilities, for where there is unity, there are also invincible might and spiritual fellowship; where there is unity, there also true love and mutual support,” the Primate of the Russian Church said, “Thanks to the unity, great historic breakthroughs… have been made possible.” His Holiness reminded all those present that an example of such nation-wide unity had been shown during the Great Patriotic War.
The MP went on to say:
According to Patriarch Kirill, “the Church was of great importance for the multimillion Russian Diaspora, for it became a unifying force and major attraction for our brothers and sisters living abroad, offering them consolation and support.”
(PAP – Wow! The EP and the GOAA say the same things and they get put down every single time but that’s because we are modernists and the Russian omogenia is pure as the driven snow and can do no wrong, right? – Cough!)
OK, but what does all this Russian Unity and Russian Diaspora unity lead to? What’s the point? Well…let the MP state it himself.
The Orthodox Church in America and the Russian Orthodox Church are true bridges which are capable of uniting Russian and American peoples in hearts. Even though the American Orthodox Church is insignificant for the United States due to the quantity of its believers, but it has an absolutely special spiritual mission, because it is a Daughter Church of the Russian Orthodox Church. The ROC is the reason our people is connected truly with the American people in the fraternity. (PAP – Bridge, fraternity, yup!) Pravmir 12, 2014.
More later.
Peter
And yet not a word of that has anything to do with Moscow claiming to be “Third Rome”. Nor does it have anything remotely to do with Moscow claiming exclusive jurisdiction in the diaspora. The reason you cannot find these things is because they are simply not there. Russia is entitled to its view of its role in its region of the world. And a ROCOR priest is certainly entitled to speculate on how situations in the diaspora might be resolved – even to ask the question, “Is Moscow the Third Rome?”. Yet he does not speak for the ROC. If you want to hear what the ROC intends, go to Met. Hilarion or Pat. Kirill, who certainly have not claimed that Moscow is the Third Rome, but neither really did Fr. Andrew. He simply wonders, as George has, of the significance of unfolding events.
All of this is kind of old news. Pat. Tikhon, before the Greeks asserted a universal patriarchate, assumed that North America was in their jurisdiction since they were the first here and had missionized it. On occasion, even the Greeks acknowledged this by consulting Moscow about the appointment of clergy. Yet this is not a claim to universal jurisdiction in the diaspora at all. North America at most, and the matter was not actually contested at the time. The Greeks, with their interpretation of canon 28 of the IV Council clearly lay claim to jurisdiction throughout the entre diaspora by right of canon law. The Russians have never even come remotely close to asserting such a thing.
None of them has said a word about Russia’s rights under canon law to govern the diaspora. Not a word.
Nor has anyone suggested replacing Constantinople with Moscow in the diptychs.
All that effort to demonstrate . . . nothing everybody didn’t already know and failing to demonstrate what you have repeatedly asserted. Again, with every post I become more convinced that you don’t actually understand what is being discussed.
But knock yourself out.
You made a valiant try, Peter, and I appreciate it. Fr. Andrew Philips is a priest with no official position expressing private opinions. I could give you examples of other flights of fancy his quite intelligent mind has taken. His work to promote a reawakening of the memory of Western Orthodox saints has been tireless, so I tend to cut him slack. I’ve seen that article, but please note that the drumbeat has never reappeared, so you can interpret that how you will.
I have read Fr. Andrew’s works off and on for years. What he specifically talks about is that Russians have to get their own house in order. In Europe there are Russian churchea under the ROCOR, Russian churches under the MP, and Russian churches under the Paris EP jurisdiction. He advocates a single western Europe Metropolia unifying all of these, with effective self-rule, from what I have read, and I see nothing worthy of censure.
That is pretty reasonable, to my mind, just as I think it is reasonable for the MP parishes and ROCOR parishes to merge into a single jurisdiction here, and for the EP’s four jurisdictiins to become one jurisdiction. He is not making a claim that non-Russian jurisdictions need to be tricked or canonically coerced into this. That is you projecting your EP policies onto Moscow. And his is a private opinion
The position of the ROC vis a vis North America prior to the revolution was clear and questioned by no-one. In the wake of the revolution, nothing has been said that does not apply strictly to its own missionary efforts and emigres. I see nothing in what you have quoted from Metr. Hilarion or Patr. Kyrill that claims that the MP is to become the EP, that Moscow is a third Rome, and that all other Orthodox in the diaspora must canonically come under the Russian Church. What I read is an acknowledgement of the obvious — as a multi-ethnic society, the historical territory of the MP leaves that Church experienced in dealing with a broad variety of cultures. They do not claim that no one else is capable of doing this (Alexandria’s work in Sub-Saharan Africa shows that true mission work can be the characteristic of all Orthodox Christians). They are simply stating that this is part of the long-standing mis sion of the Russian Church.
In spite of its small size, for instance, the ROCOR has founded far more English language non-ethnic missions and parishes in the US than has the GOA. If you include the OCA, as another church in the Russian tradition, the number explodes to overwhelm all other jurisdictions combined. And both the ROCOR and the OCA have done this mission work by consciously following the tradition of missions and outreach that go back into 18th and 19th century Russia. This is just a statement of fact. I place neither on a pedestal, and I applaud all mission work — the Antiochians have done tremendous work here, and I would point out that their great saint, Raphael, was a living example of a time when Russia and other patriarchates worked together to preserve the faith and spread the Gospel.
In short, you are twisting what you read to fit your pre-conceived notions and conspiracy theories. You have done nothing to prove your central assertions, and quite frankly are embarrassing yourself.
Edward,
The reason I didn’t want to engage in your view of things is because I knew I would not convince you and you would find a way to justify yourself out of it. So like I said before to each his own and look at their actions as they speak louder than words.
As far as embarrassment goes I would gladly accept that then what Moscow is offering. So i hope and pray you are correct, which unfortunately you are not, as embarrassment is much better than than the bs Moscow is pushing.
Peter
Peter, I was and am perfectly capable of being convinced. All I have ever asked for are quotations from the MP to back up your assertions, and I want them from church authorities who are at equivalent levels of authority within that Church. That is, comparable to those within the EP apparatus who makes claims on behalf of the Phanar to which I (along with most of the Orthodox world) rightly object.
Provide those statements, and I will admit that you are right. You know exactly what I have been asking you to produce, and instead, you just repeat talking points, using foul language in nearly every post, thinking no one will notice that you have provided zero proof of what you allege.
We can provide evidence of the Phanar’s claims, you can’t provide evidence that your slurs against the Russian Church are true. You now claim to be stopping because we won’t accept your “proof.” No. I am not convinced because you have provided no evidence for your accusations. I have held off from embracing Misha’s “family business” explanation for your persistent attacks on the Russian Church, but I begin to wonder.
I am simply glad that during my years in a GOA parish, I never encountered anything but expressions of solidarity. Likewise, all of my ROCOR experiences taught me respect for the Greek tradition. Had I encountered such anti-Russian zealotry, it would have dealt my faith a bit of a blow. As it is, I can read your posts calmly, knowing that your attitude is an anomaly that is perhaps limited to those who are somehow connected with and emotionally invested in the idea that the EP is politically “more powerful than you can imagine,” tied in with CIA operations, whatever…
I did provide them and you reasoned your way out of them as u knew you would Edward. However if you so crave words over actions I believe the recent events in Syria may provide then to you soon enough.
I Bid you peace.
Peter
No Peter, you did not. I didn’t need to reason out of anything, because you provided no quotations from any Russian Church authority about “Third Rome” or the MP becoming the EP, which is all I have been asking for, repeatedly.
When you are in a hole, stop digging.
If someone alleged that the EP claimed to be infallible, I would do the same thing — challenge them to prove it.
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/moscowtr.htm
Here is link to the totality of Fr. Andrew’s article on the meaning of the reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Church and the fall of communism. It was written before the reconciliation and is more or less a speculation on possibilities.
^ ^ ^
After a tragic interruption of some three generations owing to savage atheist persecution, new worldwide perspectives are now opening up. Moscow is becoming a global Church, the dream of Moscow the Third Rome and Second Jerusalem is perhaps now less unreal. [of course he refers to Philotheou’s dream, not reality, and makes no claim on behalf of the MP] We await further events, but we must never forget the fates of both the First Rome and the Second Rome.
[certainly a sobering thought]
The First Rome lost its way because it forgot its martyrs and turned itself into a Caesaropapist State. The Second Rome lost its way because it forgot its Confessors and was willing to exchange its destiny of humility for a betrayal of the Faith. The Third Rome must do neither. In the long term it must found new Local Churches outside Russia, strengthening the Confederal, Trinitarian nature of the Family of Local Orthodox Churches, Unity in Diversity. A unified Russian Church of the Martyrs (inside Russia) and of the Confessors (outside Russia), a Church of Martyrdom and Confessordom, may be now the only bulwark in this world against the coming of Anti-Christ. (PAP – Wow that’s pretty strong! Did Moscow Censure him for saying this? Still can’t find it). [Moscow seems not to have gotten Fr. Andrew’s memo. Since the fall of communism, the MP has not founded even one “new local church”. The reason this priest, not a hierarch authorized to speak on behalf of the MP, could not have been censured by it was because ROCOR was not reunited with the MP at the time Fr. Andrew wrote this little personal missal of his]
Again, Peter, I just don’t think you know what you’re talking about. None of what you wrote above proves anything that you have contended.
I wish the timer worked in order for me to put all this in one post, nonetheless:
I mean, really, Peter, after all of that the only person’s mouth in whom you have been able to locate the words “Third Rome” actually said it once in reference to a dream, then seems to have applied it to Moscow today and:
1. Is only a priest
2. Of the Church Abroad
3. and the statement was made before the reunification of the Russian Church
From Moscow’s failure to correct him, which they would not have been able to do until after the reunion in any case, you divine the adoption by the MP of the title “Third Rome”, despite the fact that Moscow seems not to have taken Fr. Andrew’s advice and has never applied the term to itself.
Please tell me you have more that that. I mean, as for the rest of what you posted, it indicates to me that the ROC is serious about expanding missions into the diaspora, which they are welcome to do, as is Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Serbia, Romania, . . .
Again, and I restate, the MP has not in modern history, and perhaps ever, claimed the mantle “Third Rome”. Nor has it ever asserted that it alone has jurisdiction in the diaspora, as has Constantinople through its claim under canon 28. Eventually, I hope you understand what all of that means but as of yet you seem not to.
The problem is I understand it oh so well and I unfortunately cannot show you the extreme errors of your ways. So you and others will just have to go through it. I am sorry for the pain many will experience because of the Global chess match between superpowers and Holy Sees.
Again may God have mercy on us all.
I bid you peace.
Peter
RE: “More later.”
With all due respect, Peter, please spare us those exceedingly long, Frost-like cut-and-paste posts.
I didn’t want to do it as I knew it would fall on dead ears. So yes Father I will do so.
Peter
It is to the high credit of Met. Joseph that his spokesman has now articulated publicly and quite unambiguously what everyone figured out about two years into the “Episcopal Assembly” thing. Namely, that is an intrigue of Pope Bart of Istanbul to get his fingers around the jugular veins and into the picket books of every Orthodox group (for lack of a better word) in America.
We need “Regime Change” in Istanbul. The sooner, the better. This guy is a joke.
Bully for Met. Joseph for speaking the truth when other clerics are too timid/polite/afraid/whatever to speak it.
Oh, I’m not sure anyone should bother with “regime change” in the Phanar. The question is really relevance.
IMHO, the best strategy to deal with Constantinople is polite, even cordial, indifference. Carefully elude any attempts by them to expand their jurisdiction worldwide or to change Orthodox doctrine, let them do what they do so long as they don’t slip into overt, in your face, heresy, and ignore them. Antioch has its own business to focus on. The ROC certainly has its own business to focus on. This stuff about Assemblies of Bishops and Pan-Orthodox councils, etc. is really just a distraction from tending the Lord’s flock. It puts the focus on Istanbul, making it relevant somehow to the rest of the Orthodox world. Let Istanbul be relevant to GOARCH, so long as they’re willing to put up with it.
Better for the rest of us to just reply politely to the Phanar if it addresses us, though not necessarily in agreement with it, and otherwise ignore it. We are here to seek and share theosis. All of this other stuff smells of photo-ops, arrogance and ambition. I mean, really, other than the specific situation where there is a validly organized Great and Holy Synod (and that has not happened for over 1000 years and I don’t expect it to happen again during my lifetime), I look to the MP as the earthly leader of the church to which I belong, Christ being its only real Head.
The rest of it is just bs.
This attitude is a bad witness to non-Orthodox. Some of us still care about this…especially those with friends and family considering conversion to Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy can’t claim to be about “seeking and sharing theosis” if our leaders are constantly bickering over temporal power. That would be like America claiming it’s all about freedom. (Did I say that out loud? NSA no-takebacks!)
“Orthodoxy can’t claim to be about “seeking and sharing theosis” if our leaders are constantly bickering over temporal power.”
Precisely. That’s why I advocate benign indifference. It unilaterally ends the “bickering”. Forget the assemblies and sidestep the pan-Orthodox council and all we have to argue about is who gets to build churches in Qatar.
“Benign indifference” does indeed end the bickering. It also ends the communication…the unified doctrine…eventually, the very idea of Catholic Orthodoxy.
Guess who has benign indifference to the various other factions within their Church? The Anglicans. Guess who’s probably going to divvy up their Church at the next Lambeth Conference? They will just agree to disagree. No problem.
So yes…if you want Orthodoxy to be just another group of Protestant denominations, by all means, advocate “benign indifference” to our hierarchical structures.
Wrong again, Jacob,
Historically, the various jurisdictions did not have much day to day interaction. Means of communication and limitations on travel did not allow it. Now, every little comment is news fodder. And I never advocated indifference to dogma, just to grandstanding.
Yes I agree Moscow should stop grandstanding. I agree wholeheartedly.
Peter
It’s called spreading the Gospel, Peter. The Phanar holds that no one but them should evangelize in the diaspora. That directly contradicts Christ’s injunction to “go forth and baptize . . .”. But there is no shame there so why bother arguing with them.
I wouldn’t expect people who are merely minding the Greek family business to understand.
I call it grandstanding and in the old days it was called Propaganda. Further, I didn’t know spreading the Gospel meant blessing the Russian Military to go and kill your fellow Orthodox Christians in Georgia. I must of missed that in the New Testament. I don’t expect people who are minding the Expansion of the Russian Empire to understand that.
Peter
Peter,
As I thought, you have moved beyond serious discussion and into Frosty-defamation land. First, Georgia started that war by bombing a civilian neighborhood and killing Russian peacekeepers. That territory had been in dispute from the moment the Soviet Union dissolved. The South Ossetians and Abkhazians waged a war of independence that resulted in a de facto autonomous status for their lands. Georgia broke it. War is hell. Georgia got less hell than they deserved. Now their former warmongering president, Mikheil Saakashvili, is a wanted criminal in his own country (a fair portion of his cabinet is incarcerated) and, lo and behold, he is the new governor of Odessa in the Ukraine.
Idiots.
But this has never been the criticism of the Phanar. It is upset that another local church would presume to proclaim the Gospel on its alleged canonical territory (i.e., the whole world which is not allotted to any other patriarchate). Changing the subject is a tired liberal tactic. The Phanar is just minding Greek (orthodox) Inc. If Russia intended to restore the Russian empire, Kiev would already be a Russian satellite.
The “Russian Empire” which the Phanar dreads is a strong Russian Orthodox presence throughout the world. That is certainly a project of the MP. God bless them in their endeavor to spread the faith and may God have mercy on the enemies of Christ who seek to deter them.
Misha states:
A strong Russian Empire that is a project that the MP supports! May Christ have mercy on the enemies of Christ (i.e. Russia) who seek to deter them! No, this is not Moscow’s Third Rome bs, not at all…NOT!
Oh Misha as long as its YOUR version of Canon 28 then it’s OK. And I am the one who has moved beyond serious discussion? Oh man.
Peter
“A strong Russian Empire that is a project that the MP supports! May Christ have mercy on the enemies of Christ (i.e. Russia) who seek to deter them! No, this is not Moscow’s Third Rome bs, not at all…NOT”
Peter, you seem to have slipped into wilful lying. Stop digging.
First of all, I did not call Russia the “Russian Empire” but put the term in quotation marks to indicate that this is the way some Greeks wish to view it. Thus, what I really wrote:
“The ‘Russian Empire’ which the Phanar dreads is a strong Russian Orthodox presence throughout the world.”
To rephrase, the thing which the Phanar dreads is a strong Russian Orthodox presence throughout the world, which they choose to label a “Russian Empire” or the “Third Rome”.
But you knew what I meant, which makes your subsequent statements all the more disingenuous and dishonest.
Yet even if there were a real Russian Empire, as there was for quite some time, that would not at all mean that Russia was laying claim to be the “Third Rome”. You are dishonest on that account and seem fixated on remaining so.
Let us examine for a moment what the Phanar supports in its siding with America and Western Europe against Russia:
The Euro-American bloc is hell bent on imposing its moral depravity on the rest of the world. It supports a regime of policies dedicated to the eradication of the patriarchy (the traditional order of the family in Christianity), to feminism, to abortion, to the normalization of homosexuality, to same sex marriage and to moral libertarianism. It does so through soft power, military alliances, economic alliances, NGO’s, coup d’etat’s and military adventurism. From the EU’s insistence on ethical legislation to facilitate the above immoral policies to be adopted by its potential members and economic allies, to “human rights” regimes propagated by this bloc and enforced by various mechanisms of soft power, the influence of the West is uniformly anti-Christian and anti-Christ.
It is very, very aggressive at pursuing the agenda of the evil one.
Why does the Phanar side with the Euro-American bloc against their Orthodox brethren in Russia who, in terms of church-state symphony, are doing nothing more than what was done in the Eastern Roman Empire and Imperial Russia? Purely selfish motives. They sell their patrimony for a cup of porridge.
It was understandable during the Soviet period that the Phanar would work against the Soviet Union. However, their record on that account is actually a bit murky as we shall see below. Now, Russia is no longer ruled by a government dedicated to militant atheism, but by a government that is quite active in propagating Orthodoxy at home and abroad.
And the Phanar can’t stand it because someone else is fulfilling the Great Commission on its fancifully alleged territory (the whole world, i.e.). Pure arrogance. Childish jealousy and off the hook pride. But it is more than that, it is a certain soullessness or profound spiritual depravity. Though it has not formally left the Church, its overtures and relationship with Rome, its outright hostility to traditional Orthodoxy, and its alliance with powers that are sworn enemies of Christian morality – all this is very ugly.
One is only being charitable when one attributes this to blind love of omogenia, the Greek (orthodox) family business. Seen in a different light it is openly diabolical. “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
Of course, there is no moral equivalency whatsoever between what Moscow is doing and what the Phanar alleges under its canon 28 mythology. Constantinople tries to prevent others from evangelizing by claiming the whole world. Moscow only guards its own territory and tells no one that they cannot expand into territory unallocated to another autocephalous local church. In fact, if you examine the OCA tomos carefully, you will see that it does not even presume to interfere with other jurisdictions operating in North America.
One policy fosters evangelism, the other stands in its way.
Let us remember the words of St. John Maximovitch. After reciting quite a bill of particulars against Constantinople, he concluded:
“The moral authority of the Patriarchs of Constantinople has likewise fallen very low in view of their extreme instability in ecclesiastical matters. Thus, Patriarch Meletius IV arranged a “Pan-Orthodox Congress,” with representatives of various churches, which decreed the introduction of the New Calendar. This decree, recognized only by a part of the Church, introduced a frightful schism among Orthodox Christians. Patriarch Gregory VII recognized the decree of the council of the Living Church concerning the deposing of Patriarch Tikhon, whom not long before this the Synod of Constantinople had declared a “confessor,” and then he entered into communion with the “Renovationists” in Russia, which continues up to now.
In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power—represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.”
Misha, Peter, et al: leaving aside the geopolitical issue, I think what is helping to prop up C’pole as a counter-weight to Moscow, is a continuation of the Cold War under another name. In this case secular-liberalism (us) vs. anti-American/EU-hegemonism (Moscow).
Like all conflicts, it’s messy and it’s hard to differentiate between right and wrong given the fallen state of humanity in general. Nevertheless, I suspect that we will start seeing defections of hierarchs and clergymen from the more rigorous Russian-originated jurisdictions to the Phanar in the near future. The excuse will be that they are “troubled” by the “fundamentalist tone” that is coming out of Moscow (and now Antioch) and will soon be seeking transfers to the patriarchate of C’pole.
“I think what is helping to prop up C’pole as a counter-weight to Moscow, is a continuation of the Cold War under another name. In this case secular-liberalism (us) vs. anti-American/EU-hegemonism (Moscow).”
Agreed, George. Though I would say that Russian hegemony is not a bad thing and that the Phanar ought to find another enemy to prop it up. Someone is going to dominate in that part of the world (Eastern Europe), might as well be the most powerful nation there. We certainly can’t do it, nor can the EU. As my dear departed mother told me: “Communism was the only thing keeping those people from killing one another.” Someone has to act as a regional hegemon.
Also, the hegemony is not based on anti-Americanism or anti-EU’ism. That is an unfortunate byproduct of the fact that the RF intends to pursue its own national interests regarding economic and military security and has no intention of being “contained” by NATO and the EU.
“I suspect that we will start seeing defections of hierarchs and clergymen from the more rigorous Russian-originated jurisdictions to the Phanar in the near future.”
I’m not sure I agree, George. I have heard nary a peep from ethnic Russians. Now, you may have a massive defection of sorts in Ukraine of Ukrainian nationalist clergy. Also, money talks. The Greeks have salary guidelines for their clergy that are quite generous by Russian standards. Bribery certainly is a possibility.
OCA clergy, of course, have sent a letter to Pat. Kirill urging him to intervene with Putin on behalf of the new Ukrainian gov’t: http://risu.org.ua/en/index/all_news/orthodox/orthodox_world/55551/
But, as it is fond of pointing out, the OCA is not the Russian Orthodox Church. I can see the possibility of defection for any clergy, for example, in Western Europe who are “stragglers” from the Met. Anthony (Bloom)/neo-Orthodox camp – I mean those that haven’t already jumped ship. As the ever-memorable Jean Kirkpatrick said of those disgruntled at American management of the UN:
“We will put no impediment in your way, and we will be down at the dock bidding you a fond farewell as you sail off into the sunset.”
Peter;
What about during the Balkan Wars when a Greek poster depicted a Greek soldier literally biting into the cheek of a Bulgarian soldier with the caption “Volgarofagitos”(Bulgarian-Eater)? Wasn’t THAT encouraging people to kill their fellow Orthodox?
The usually encountered phrase is ‘benign neglect’.
But there is no such thing! Neglect is always the source of rot, the start of putrefaction and decay into nothingness.
Given even my most recent experiences with ‘Anglican Catholics’, I think that it’s a bit premature to consign all Anglicans to a never-ending dithering into oblivion. Some of them are really faithful Christians, and are desperately seeking to be anchored in the authentically orthodox catholic christian tradition.
A not inconsiderable number of them are considering a move into the RCC’s ‘Anglican Indult’ structure.
May the Lord grant us the vision and strength to be more proactive and helpful to these people before they ‘swim the Tiber’ and buy into the errors of Rome.
Since I did not advocate “benign neglect”, I will not disagree with you.
That’s why we need to convert people to Christ first and foremost, not to adherence to Istanbul.
Orthodoxy is the best and truest way to know Christ. It is the only sure road to theosis. The guy whose name is read by the patriarchal deacon is not unimportant, but it’s not something to entirely base a conversion upon either.
Or Moscow, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc, etc.
Peter
I quite agree with polite indifference as the best overall strategy. And I think that the Patriarchates who are tending to the business of converting the people in their canonical territory to Christianity are for the most part doing that. Alexandria is a prime example.
The problem is that inter-Orthodox consultation and meetings are necessary, and since the full-time business of the Phanar is playing political games, they are quite skilled at making themselves seem more important than they actually are.–sort of like those birds who puff out their feathers to increase their visual impact. In those situations, someone periodically has to point out the obvious.
We need “Regime Change” in Istanbul. The sooner, the better. This guy is a joke.
Indeed!!! It seems we are dealing with another Meletios Metaxakis.
Bravo Metropolitan Joseph!
St Mark of Ephesus pray for us!
As a Carpatho-Russian, no way with the “ecumenical” Patriachate. In America we are free and remember the Council of Florence. How many adherents does the patriarch have in Turkey ?
You suggest an interesting point — I have found myself recently reflecting on the ways in which the EP’s ethnic jurisdictions are like a sort of Eastern Orthodox version of Uniatism: you get to keep your liturgical and ethnic customs, and keep your ecclesiastical apparatus. One need only kneel and kiss the ring, so to speak.
Do you think Moscow demands anything less? How about the OCA? Hmmm?
Peter
I wasn’t aware that the MP maintained parallel jurisdictions of different ethnicities on the same soil anywhere in the world. Do they have a jurisdiction of Greeks somewhere that I don’t know about?
You are right about the OCA in one sense, but at least in that jurisdiction there is a strong desire and long standing hopes and plans for integration. Besides, nobody thinks the OCA is making a power play for world domination within Orthodoxy. ..
No? Making a power play for America is basically the same thing. That’s why everyone wants it.
Also the MP has so called representative churches here on US soil. To me that’s pretty much the same thing and terribly insulting to the OCA.
Peter
The MP, whatever its faults, cannot be blamed for not wanting to place new Russian-speaking parishes under OCA jurisdiction. The OCA has been a mess, and I’m speaking as an OCA parishioner. I think the MP is perfectly content to let the OCA have the konvertsky and the American potomki.
The ACROD would disagree with you.
Peter
Oh pa leeezezzzz as a Carp i can tell you there is nothing more regressive than the Johnstown set, from the Latin Bishop Martin to the current EP stooge, it is this group of anti Russian Russins, the inbred hroup of hraptives holely beholding to the hekumeniaekul hatriarchate. My dumb landsmen cannot see beyond their hate of Russia and Russian hierarchy to see that the EP has them truly by the short hairs. Do the Byelo Russians still have a EP jurisdiction here? Anyone know?
Andre Hirhro
The Byelorussians have a few parishes under the EP, Chicago, Toronto, and South River, NJ, and maybe a church in Cleveland. They never had a bishop of their own. There are also the few Estonian parishes which no longer have connection with the EP.I was trying to get the Archpriest who heads this group in Canada to hook up with the Ukrainian church there. That way, at least they’d be in communion with the Orthodox world.
Generally speaking, with the greying of these parishes, the schisms they engage in tend to die with them.
The ACROD crowd was forced into a corner and greeted with a conform or forget about it ultimatum by Russian Bishops of yore. This was an unfortunate mistake. Another example of shortsightedness: once upon a time, a large Ukrainian samosvyat parish in Upstate NY came to realize the untenable nature of the schism they found themselves in. They approached the ROCOR Archbishop of the region looking to be received back into the ancestral church of Rus’ as they understood it with the simple proviso that they be allowed to use Ukrainian vernacular with occasional Slavonic so that their people could understand the services. The ROCOR Archbishop refused and gave no leaway and closed off all discussion of the matter. Not only did this then large parish remain in samosvyat schism, similar Ukrainian parishes and dissident groups turned on the idea of unity with the Mother Church (as they saw ROCOR in that light). This was a travesty.Going forward as a North American church, we have to accomodate Carpatho Ruthenian, Ukro-Ruthenian AKA Ukrainian and White Ruthenian distinctiveness in order to end the schisms and stay the match of secularization and apostasy.
please supply a text version of recordings, thanks
A transcript of the interview can be found here
Mr. Kevin Allen: Welcome to Ancient Faith Today. You know, for almost fifty years, the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America has been a well-known advocate for Orthodox unity, or one local Orthodox church in North America, primarily through the support of Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) of thrice-blessed memory. At the recent sixth Assembly of Bishops meeting in Chicago this last September, which has been charged by an agreement signed at Chambésy, Switzerland, by the 14 autocephalous patriarchs, including the Patriarchate of Antioch, to meet as Assemblies in areas which do not have a singular canonical Orthodox church, and it is charged with the role of proposing a way to unify the 12 U.S. jurisdictions into one, united, local Orthodox Church, according to canonical standards of “one bishop, one city, one Church.”
The Antiochian Archdiocese of North America, one of the three largest in the United States, along with the other 12 Orthodox churches in the Assembly, gave a formal response to the Committee for Regional Canonical Planning’s proposal for unity. And in the statement now made public, the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America essentially seemed to reverse its long-standing position, rejecting in its statement any separation from the mother church of Antioch, proposing that the Episcopal Assembly be a voluntary assembly and not a formal synod; rejecting any restructuring of present geographical boundaries, even those of overlapping bishops; and defining “unity” as allowing “for the continued work and support of each of the jurisdictions, for their people and continued unity with respective mother churches.”
Well, in this interview, I will discuss the new position statement of the Antiochian Archdiocese on unity in North America and the reasons for it, with the Very Rev. Patrick O’Grady. Fr. Patrick is the senior priest of St. Peter the Apostle Antiochian Orthodox Church in Pomona, California, and has been blessed by his Antiochian primate, Metropolitan Joseph, to speak for the Archdiocese in this interview. And in keeping with Ancient Faith Radio’s policy of full disclosure, I should say that I have been a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese for 21 years. Fr. Patrick O’Grady, thank you for joining me on Ancient Faith Today.
Very Rev. Fr. Patrick O’Grady: It’s a pleasure to be with you.
Mr. Allen: Father, let’s begin here. Given our previous Metropolitan Philip’s support for administrative unity of the Orthodox jurisdictions in North America, how would you differentiate the positions or the approaches of Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) and the current Antiochian primate, Metropolitan Joseph, towards the idea of one local Orthodox Church in the U.S.?
Fr. Patrick: Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) of blessed memory has provided for us, through his prodigious organizational and evangelistic talents, a groundwork, a framework, a foundation for advancing the Orthodox presence in this continent. And through the 48 years of his tenure as metropolitan archbishop of New York and leader of the Antiochian Church here in this country, he’s worked tirelessly to establish relationships, to build structures. In short, his talents were organizational and evangelistic.
Metropolitan Joseph has been here in this Archdiocese for over 20 years, and in that time he worked to build upon Metr. Philip’s organizational accomplishments by bringing a personalism, an interrelational vision of ministry, a confraternal vision, in order to strengthen the spiritual and, you might say, invisible aspects of our Orthodoxy in this country. Metr. Philip was an organized and methodical laborer; Metr. Joseph is a community-oriented and more relational-gifted leader of our Church. We are now in a whole new world after a couple of years of transition. We find ourselves in considerably changed circumstances in this country, as well as in the Middle East. There are many undercurrents that are at work here, but in short, Metr. Joseph is committed to extending and building upon the work of Metr. Philip, but in his own way and with his own charisms.
Mr. Allen: So here’s the $64,000 question that we’re going to get into some of the reasons for the statement and many other issues, Fr. Patrick O’Grady: so is the new position of Antioch and the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America permanently against unity, or is it merely an issue of means and timing, in your view and in the Archdiocese’s view?
Fr. Patrick: This is very straight-forward. Metr. Joseph is still committed to advancing the cause of Orthodox unity in this country. I think it’s very important to stress what unity is. Unity is, as St. Paul speaks, it is speaking the truth in love. Unity cannot exist only on an organizational or exterior or jurisdictional, institutional framework, but it has to be developed from very deep and abiding commitments on the part of all of the people involved.
Mr. Allen: Let me read this to you, Father. You know the statement well. The statement presented by Antioch reads:
The holy Synod of the Patriarch[ate of Antioch] and her Patriarch John (or Youhanna) X remains committed to the unity of the patriarchate with all the Antiochian faithful, wherever they are.
So with respect, the statement itself doesn’t exactly sound like a temporary position, but a new position on Orthodox ecclesiology or Church governance, one where there are no official geographical boundaries, which is not really what Orthodox canons call for. Would you like to comment?
Fr. Patrick: Sure. Of course. Okay, first of all, there is no land in the world where the relationship with the mother churches involved were not sustained after the granting of autocephaly. History is rugged. Sometimes there are partitions that are, at first, forced, and then settlements are made afterwards, and then sometimes there are settlements made up front, and then the relationship goes on from there. This is the way human beings relate to each other. Sometimes there’s a fight and then you make up and you hug; sometimes you agree ahead of time and you make progress that way. As far as we’re concerned, we have no intention ever of separating our relationship with the mother church, with Patriarch Youhanna and the holy Synod of Antioch. This is our mother church. The see of Antioch was the first of the Christian metropolitan churches, and it’s a venerable and long-standing tradition which we intend never to break.
When the day comes when Orthodox in this country are mature enough and have established the framework of relationships suitable for the gift of autocephaly, without sundering relations to our mother churches, then it’ll be an organic and obvious thing, and will not be a rupture.
Mr. Allen: So I’ve got to follow up with that. I’ve heard that argument, that we’re not ready for an American Orthodox Church. Is it the position of the patriarch of Antioch and the Antiochian Christian Archdiocese of North America that, after 200 years of the Orthodox being in America, having eight seminaries, 55 bishops, thousands of parishes and cathedrals, 71 male and female monastic communities, media of all kind, thousands of seminary-trained priests, Orthodox international and domestic philanthropic organizations, founded, formed, and funded in and by the United States, that we’re not mature enough to manage our own affairs?
Fr. Patrick: It’s not a matter of institutional maturity such as you’ve listed. These are all wonderful achievements. The problem, I think, lies in our American culture. We value, as North Americans, independence as a virtue. This is a problem…
Mr. Allen: It’s in our DNA.
Fr. Patrick: Yeah, it’s in our DNA, and it’s something that’s made us great, but it’s also cut us off from a lot, because we’ve turned ourselves away from some elements of the Old World which we really desperately need in order to be a full and complete people. So we have condemned ourselves to a kind of naïve view of self-importance with a minimal view of history and a large sense of destiny—you know, the American manifest destiny, that kind of thing—and also, we are not an ethnic-based state, like the Old World states were, so we don’t really have the sense of nationhood, that is to say, ethno-, like a mono-ethnic state, as the Old World, so we find it very difficult to grasp the very real pastoral needs which each ethnic people in the Old World had, and they brought with them to this new world. This takes time to work out. Each people have a certain language, a culture, and here in America, to become truly autocephalous, that is, in a fundamental and apostolic sense of that word as well matured…
Mr. Allen: And meaning self-headed, for those that don’t know that.
Fr. Patrick: That’s right, self-headed. But this is… Our Orthodox concept of that is not institutional. It’s really apostolic. It has to do with the grounding of a church in its people. We’re not there yet.
Mr. Allen: You know, His Beatitude in Antioch’s current patriarch, Youhanna or John X, was the Church of Antioch’s delegate to the official pre-conciliar meetings in Chambésy, Switzerland, in 2008, although the process leading up to this was over the last 28 years. Our patriarch personally signed the documents which establish the Episcopal Assemblies, tasking them with the role and the responsibility for eradicating the canonical anomaly of having multiple jurisdictions and bishops. So, given the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America’s indisputable record, Fr. Patrick O’Grady, of support for a united American Orthodox Church for near 50 years, let’s go through what you feel are the main reasons for the seeming reversal of the position of the Antiochian Archdiocese in terms of reorganizing the 12 jurisdictions into one local Orthodox church.
Fr. Patrick: Okay, first of all, the signing at Chambésy was a mutual effort that all of the senior pastors of the local churches of Orthodoxy, the many that signed there, expressed their apostolic confraternity in that meeting and that signature and were dedicated to that living process. However, the Episcopal Assembly as we see it now is not expressing that confraternity sufficiently, and this is the reason why the statement that Metr. Joseph has issued, why this statement has come out, especially I’m referring to the language where it says, “We suggest that the Assembly of Bishops in the United States work as a voluntary Assembly of all the canonical bishops.” The reason why he said this is because that’s exactly the spirit in which the Episcopal Assembly is carrying on its work. It is not the spirit of Chambésy; it is the spirit of… some other spirit. And the experience that Metr. Joseph has had there is one of confraternity on an exterior level only. There remains to be done the very serious personal engagement with the other hierarchs involved in order to go deep and to express this true apostolic egalitarianism—I’d like to stress that word: egalitarianism—and mutual respect. So that’s the tip of the iceberg here.
Mr. Allen: Which the Antiochian Archdiocese does not feel exists at the Assembly at this point?
Fr. Patrick: Yes, that’s correct.
Mr. Allen: Isn’t an Assembly like this an appropriate—and please disagree if you want to—not an appropriate forum for the development of such fraternal relations and working out a solution to the anomalies that exist in the U.S.?
Fr. Patrick: Yes, but, look: we’ve got sensitive matters that charity demands be handled with discretion, and that is: Metr. Joseph is trying to initiate meaningful conversations with the other hierarchs involved. Until that’s forthcoming, it seems to be a waste of time.
Mr. Allen: It’s just kind of a setting of an agenda from imposed… and meetings and so on, is what you’re saying?
Fr. Patrick: You’re saying it. This is exactly right. The imposition of an agenda and basically a framework of relationship that is alien to the original, you might say, inspiring element behind it.
Mr. Allen: And I’ve heard, following up on that, Fr. Patrick O’Grady, that some leaders of the Antiochian Archdiocese—not all, but some—feel that the Assembly is too much driven by politics, with an imposed underlying agenda. Would that be an accurate characterization, and would you be able to articulate what you perceive as being such an underlying agenda?
Fr. Patrick: Well, first of all, let me throw out a kind of a little quip here that sort of works anywhere. As soon as you get two or three human beings together talking about something serious, you have politics. In other words, the secular equivalent of “Where two or three are present in my name, there am I in the midst”? So we have two or three human beings together, talking about some issue, and you get politics. So, yes, of course we’re driven by politics. However, it shouldn’t be mere politics. Politika, politics—having to do with the polis, the city. We have to talk about stuff. This is not a negative thing, but it’s not enough. In the Church we have something very deep, and it’s a brotherhood of love, and really drawing upon the ancient, apostolic confraternity that we see in the holy synods of the early Church. This same brotherhood or apostolicity is fundamental for the granting of respect. And if I may, at some point, I’m looking forward to expressing that more clearly. I don’t know if this is the question you want to do this through, but I’m looking forward to explaining why that is not so.
Mr. Allen: Now I did ask about the underlying agenda. I don’t want to mention any names, but are you saying that the imposition of an agenda—in the view of the Antiochians—has a predetermined goal that we object to?
Fr. Patrick: Yes. In short, the Church of Antioch is a sister church to the other churches of Orthodoxy: the Church of Constantinople, that of Jerusalem, that of Alexandria, Russia, et cetera. We have a brotherhood of churches which together with one faith express the apostolic confraternity. So Jesus called the 12, so here we have the many churches, but the one Church. There is a doctrine regarding this one Church that we reject, and that is, first of all, the subsuming of the Church of Constantinople of the role of primacy of honor—this is well-accepted and understood—since Rome left our company a long time ago. So Constantinople, as second in honor, presides in honor.
However, this is not primacy of jurisdiction outside the territories of the Old World churches, and this is the problem here. The Episcopal Assembly seems to be governed by a kind of innovative interpretation of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod’s 28th canon. We reject this interpretation. I am referring especially to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s emissary who spoke here in this country a few years ago and interpreted that canon very carefully. We reject this interpretation. The Canon 28 was not accepted widely at the time and was always understood to refer to the immediate area around New Rome: Thrace, Scythia, and so on. But here we are, over a thousand years later, in a new world where many, many Orthodox precede the coming of the Constantinopolitans to this country and already have a long history. We have to have a new way here, and it has to be built on mutual respect. In short, the Church of Constantinople cannot impose universal jurisdiction over the Orthodox in this country. If that’s going to be the agenda, we have no way forward.
Mr. Allen: And by the way, just to add to our conversation for our listeners, this view by Antioch on Canon 28 is not a new one. In fact, in the early 1990s, at the inter-Orthodox preparatory commission, leading up to a Great and Holy Council which is now planned for 2016, Romania, Moscow, and Antioch argued that Canon 28 was overridden by earlier provisions, such as I Constantinople, Canon 2, which reads:
The churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the customs which has prevailed from the time of the Fathers.
i.e., a local autocephalous church. So I just wanted to throw that in. So that is the canon that you are going by, not by the Canon 28, and some are.
Fr. Patrick: Yes, sure.
Mr. Allen: Fr. Patrick O’Grady, would the Antiochians disagree, though, that administrative unification, in addition to the spiritual, theological, and sacramental unity which some say we already have, would you disagree that administrative unification is an equally integral part to the Orthodox definition of unity, in terms of polity and governance?
Fr. Patrick: Yes, but let’s put the horse in front of the cart and not the other way around. This is where we get in trouble. If we start adding up numbers and applying budgets and assigning responsibilities before we have a fundamental relationship of faith working through love, mutual trust, mutual respect, and a knowledge of one another—we have to know one another; let us talk to one another so we know our burdens, our desires, our visions—then it’s obvious that we’re sitting down and working together, and the administration, the organization, the structure of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in this country will express itself quite naturally.
Mr. Allen: But it still would have to be agreed to by all of the 14 autocephalous mother churches, no?
Fr. Patrick: Well, I think, as I said before, human relationships are sometimes rocky. Sometimes you work out an answer to something that is maybe not known ahead of time, and other times it works out quite by divine mercy and divine grace. We have to trust God a little bit in this process. We just have to do our homework. If we do our homework, if we are present… Look, we’re trying to express something. When Metr. Joseph stands absent at the Episcopal Assembly, he’s saying something. Let’s keep in mind that silence on the part of the bishops sometimes speaks louder than words. I’m citing from St. Ignatius now.
Mr. Allen: What is he saying?
Fr. Patrick: He says the silence of the bishop is louder than a word. For the bishop to descend into always running around with his head cut off, trying to be everywhere and complaining about this or that is inappropriate. We have an apostolic figure here, so when he’s silent or when he steps away, we should pay attention and say, “Okay, what’s wrong? What’s happening?” That’s what’s going on here. By his silence, he’s speaking. And what is that word? That word is a word of sobriety; it’s a word of seriousness. Metr. Joseph, in his silence, is saying, “Let us be more serious about this process. This is a human process that’s profound, and it’s very important for our country and for the salvation of our people.” So let us pay attention to that. Can we work a little bit ascetically and ask ourselves, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
Mr. Allen: To what extent, Fr. Patrick, moving on a little bit, is the Syrian crisis and Iraq, and the Middle East in general, something that has affected the Antiochian Archdiocese and its statement and intention not to separate from the mother church at this point?
Fr. Patrick: Okay, let’s address the Syrian one in just a moment. It is important. I would just like to undergird, a little bit more, you might say, the track record or the actual experience that Metr. Joseph has shown in his commitment to unity and confraternity on the principle of apostolic respect, mutual respect, and egalitarianism. I want to give a couple of elements to underscore that. It would be a shame if I didn’t get to express these.
So, briefly, when Metr. Joseph was our archbishop in the West, in the Diocese of the West of the Antiochian Archdiocese, he worked very hard and achieved a great deal in pan-Orthodox unity by fostering an episcopal confraternity among the other Orthodox bishops of the west: the Greek Metropolitan of San Francisco, Gerasimos; Archbishop Benjamin of the Orthodox Church in America; Bishop Maxim of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Diocese of the West; and he offered also welcoming invitations which were not reciprocated to Archbishop Kyrill of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. So Metr. Joseph has contributed to this and even leading to the formation of mutual pan-Orthodox clergy meetings, in which we got to know each other and the bishops worshiped together, each of them granting the other sort of protos role, or first role, in worship in each other’s churches. So it was a wonderful relationship.
Second, when Metr. Joseph met with the Episcopal Assembly, the small group of leaders, in Dallas recently—I believe it was last year—there was a lot of expression about not having enough money to hold the meetings, and he offered to host them at Antiochian Village. And he said, “Look, let’s meet together there. It will cost you nothing, and we can even celebrate the Liturgy together, because what unity could be more important than that at the chalice?” And they turned him down.
And then, finally, Metr. Joseph’s chairmanship of the committee, the Episcopal Assembly Committee on Pastoral Practices, has done more work than any of the other committees has done at all. So he’s been very committed to the process and has actually shown good fruit on it. I know this personally because I’m involved with that committee, and I see how he works with the other bishops and the other clergy that are not Antiochian. So it’s very powerful.
Now, to move on to the Syrian question: This is a serious pastoral crisis of Christians in the Middle East. I cannot overstate the serious depth, the profundity of the crisis in blood that is unfolding in the Middle East and in Syria in particular, and the break-up of the country and the suffering of the Christians of every kind—not just Orthodox, but of every background—and this is a humanitarian crisis in the very fullest sense of the word. The people, not only Christian, but even Muslim sects of one kind or another, are all suffering from this. This is a very evil thing that’s unfolding in the Middle East.
His Beatitude, Patriarch Youhanna, has his hands full, and he’s weeping for his children. No matter what happens in this country, it does not matter. We have to have a spiritual sensitivity to our mother church. We have to. We have to be able to show some attention to this crisis, and we cannot have our attention turned away. However, that’s not the reason for some of these other things that are unfolding. I just think it’s an important to state that it’s in the background—actually, it’s in the foreground for us, because we’re trying to show humanitarian relief.
Mr. Allen: Sure. Now I can understand the situation in Syria being a factor. Would it not be possible, Fr. Patrick O’Grady, and likely that a fully united, local Orthodox Church in the U.S. would have more political and even financial clout and could be a more political influence in philanthropic help than just 12 disconnected jurisdictions, each with relatively small numbers and very little influence in American Western Europe?
Fr. Patrick: Yes, no question about it. However, once again, we cannot put the cart in front of the horse. This cost of effectiveness because of our organizationally splintered presentation to the rest of people out there is just where we are now. We can’t… This cannot be the basis for “Well, let’s all unify so we can get political action.” That kind of a unity is not a good unity. It leads to serious problems. Look, Metr. Joseph said once—he’s said many times, but I heard him say it once, regarding a small parish in the west that was struggling—he said, “Look, I don’t close churches.” Somebody said, “Sayidna, you should just close the church,” and he said, “I don’t close churches. I open churches. Once I open a church, I stay with it, and we never go back.” And this is how it is with our Orthodox situation in this country. Once we arrive at a sort of like a new status quo of organizational structure to our Church that’s really authentic, we will never, ever go back. Therefore, we must build on a foundation of rock and not of sand, so that it stays there no matter what the storm.
Mr. Allen: I keep hearing as an underlying thought, as you’re saying this, that, again, the sand-versus-the-rock is about the imposition of an agenda from without versus an organic development of unity.
Fr. Patrick: This is true. There are other cross-currents underneath. We could take, for example, the failure of our sister churches to act to uphold the Antiochene claims regarding its territorial incursion in Qatar. And this is a serious matter that still remains unresolved. Metr. Joseph has appealed to his brother, one of the hierarchs of the other jurisdictions in this country, to help him with this, and he’s had promises that, yes, we’ll get to this; we will settle this matter—and to no avail. After time, after time, after time: no avail. So where’s the beef?
Mr. Allen: And, going back for our listeners, early in the 21st century, in Doha, Qatar, the ex-ambassador of the U.S., Patrick Theros, called in a Jerusalem priest who is now the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to do festal services because there was no Orthodox Church in Qatar, although there are many pan-Orthodox there, but in 2013, after building a cathedral, what happened is that they established a metropolitanate and basically claimed that region as their own. I can understand the frustration of the holy Synod. Do you think, Fr. Patrick O’Grady, things would be different in regard to the process of unity of the Orthodox churches in America if this situation in Qatar had been or were resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties, including Antioch? Or, again, is this a new and intractable position of the Antiochians and the patriarchate?
Fr. Patrick: Well, certainly, if there was movement on this front, it would show the mutual respect that I was talking about. This is the kind of expression of charity and mutual love that is expected, that we would take up one another’s issues and work together with them instead of just simply brushing them aside. There is no question about the claim of Antioch regarding the East—Arabia—and its claim here. What’s strange to us is that there’s such a strong and literal interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28 regarding primacy of jurisdiction in the so-called “barbarian lands”—last time I checked, we here in America are not barbarians, or the rest of the Western hemisphere—and yet, a complete disregard for the settlement over the territorial, the pastoral territorial region of Antioch and Jerusalem that was settled at the exact same ecumenical synod—Chalcedon—and that is completely being disregarded.
Mr. Allen: I’ve heard others, Father, say about this territorial dispute in Doha, Qatar. They’ve asked, “Why should a territorial dispute in the Arabian peninsula take precedence over or obstruct the rightful future of the Orthodox Church in America and elsewhere?” How would you respond to that?
Fr. Patrick: It’s very simple. We’re one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and a matter that affects one part of the Church affects all of the churches. A joy that affects one church is shared by all the churches. As St. Paul says, “When one member of the body suffers, we all suffer; when another rejoices, we all rejoice.”
Mr. Allen: Moving to another point, Father, that people have raised with me, there has been a lot of emphasis, as you know, within the Antiochian patriarchate and our Archdiocese and others since the repose of Metr. Philip (Saliba) or blessed memory on “Antiochian unity.” And some have asked me, “Why is Antiochian unity more important than American unity?”
Fr. Patrick: Oh, this is an overstatement of matters. Antiochian unity, of course, is very important. It’s an organic unity. It’s a unity of mother with children. This can never be broken. However, we are here together in America. Of course we’re here together in America. And we are working, we are praying, we are sharing, we have as much participation in various organizations, pan-Orthodox organizations, as any other Orthodox jurisdiction. In fact, it’s some of our spiritual children that have started those organizations, like IOCC and the rest. If it wasn’t for our active involvement, which we’re constantly underscoring, then I wonder what the quality of this pan-Orthodox experience in North America would look like.
Mr. Allen: Speaking about the mother-and-daughter relationship, just as a follow-up, it’s been reported that at the recent Episcopal Assembly, Bishop Gregory, primate of the Carpatho-Russian Diocese, argued that it was not natural for a child, when it has grown up, to live with his or her mother, and that to move out on one’s own does not imply that the mother-child relationship has ended, but that it takes on a more mature aspect. So my question is: Is unity with mother churches therefore only possible while being under its omophoria as an exarchate, or can there not be a continuing spiritual culture of connection with the mother churches while being a thriving, independent church in North America?
Fr. Patrick: Yes, this is entirely possible, and over time—no one can say never in this world—things will evolve and develop relationally one way or the other and we’ll have these things expressed. This is what Church history has taught us over the centuries.
Mr. Allen: But as you know, this process has been going on fro 20 or 25 years. It’s not just starting since the Chambésy accords have been going on for quite a while.
Fr. Patrick: Yeah, sure. But keep in mind that the old order, the SCOBA order, was self-determined. It was not related to the apostolic mother churches. This was part of the experimentation; we Americans love that. We like to do our own thing and make it work. When it comes to Orthodoxy, we have to have a higher and more connected way of doing it, therefore the Episcopal Assembly process is now related to the mother churches. It’s a step forward, but now let it be done decently and in order.
Mr. Allen: You know, Fr. Patrick O’Grady, another criticism I’ve heard about the position statement of the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese in North America is that, like previous statements of ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) and Bulgaria, it seems to be about the patriarchate of Antioch and the Antiochian Archdiocese, and not at all about the needs and the future of the Orthodox Church and its people in the U.S. and North America. How would you respond to that?
Fr. Patrick: That’s patent nonsense. First of all, in our Antiochian Archdiocese, we have people of every ethnic background. I myself haven’t got a drop of eastern blood in me. I’m of Irish-American, German, Swiss-German roots. My great-grandfather came over here from Ireland to New York, and on my mother’s side Swiss-German. I have to learn Arabic like a baby, and I’m 65 years old, to relate to people for whom that’s important. In our churches, English is the dominant language here in North America. Most, a great deal of our clergy are not from Arabic descent or Greek descent. I think we have a very strong track record of showing our truly multi-ethnic and multi-cultural and truly American contextualized Church.
Mr. Allen: Father, the statement the Antiochians presented at the Assembly, again, rejects any restructuring of geographical boundaries as proposed by the Assembly’s Committee on Regional Planning, which is, to some extent, in conformity with the ancient canons of Church organization: one church, one bishop, one city. But even disregarding the issue of conformity to ecclesiastical and canonical standards, is it the position of Antioch that this country is best served, long-term, by maintaining the status quo of 12 overlapping independent bishops and jurisdictions without singular leadership, polity, and without a strategic vision and plan for the U.S., or is that even a concern?
Fr. Patrick: Of course it’s a concern, and we uphold the canonical structure of the Church: one city, one bishop. This is obviously the canonical way Orthodoxy unfolds, and this is what we support. We do not agree to an ethnically based vicariate, overlapping, you might say, vicariates: “You take care of the Russians, you take care of the Greeks,” and so on. This is not our vision. Ours is an apostolic vision. Look, Antioch, from its very beginning, had a vision that was inter-ethnic and inter-cultural. Antioch was a great meeting place of cultures and languages, and that is our background and our history.
So in this country, once again, I’d like to point to Sayidna’s promotion of the confraternity of the bishops—all of the Orthodox bishops—in the area of the West. You could even say that if that continued apace, eventually there would be a settlement of areas just out of an organic, you might say, relational basis. The bishops would say, “Let us work on organizing the proper canonical structure of our region with the blessing of our churches,” and slowly then one would take care of this city and another take care of that, and all of the faithful would be consolidated. This is an organic process; it’s not an institutional one. It has to come from love, it has to come from mutual charity, and this is eventually how things work out over time, in the old countries as well.
Mr. Allen: But I thought that’s what the Assembly of Bishops is trying to do, is to elicit suggestions from each of the 12 jurisdictions to make proposals for such a restructuring. Has Antioch made a formal proposal in contradistinction to that of the Committee for Canonical Regional Planning?
Fr. Patrick: It’s too early for that kind of proposal, because we have not achieved the basis for it. Remember, I’m emphasizing in behalf of Sayidna the need for a solid foundation of mutual respect and egalitarianism among the bishops. If there’s another agenda involved, we cannot advance to this moment.
Mr. Allen: As you know, Fr. Patrick O’Grady, we’re a very small church. We’re about 0.06% of the U.S. population, and not with growing numbers, and many non-Orthodox see the Orthodox Church in America the same way they do Protestant denominations, but based on ethnic and nationalistic grounds. So do you think this fragmented state of the Orthodox jurisdictions is a good witness to the unity and the universality Orthodoxy is supposed to manifest, and how does this state of fragmentation help the cause of the Great Commission?
Fr. Patrick: I think it’s better to emphasize the unity that we express in any given place. For example, in southern California, we foster, like in my parish with other parishes, a constant inter- or pan-Orthodox consolidarity. Like when we worship at each other’s churches and work on charitable affairs that are shared, when the clergy meet together, when they are in one another’s churches celebrating their feasts, this kind of thing—when we’re together in worship and in charity, in mercy, then we’re making the witness at the level where it counts, where people live. The rest of this will come in time. To add to this, I’d like to kind of push a little harder. This agenda of a strong, you might say, primacy of jurisdiction exercise from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. His Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew himself never mentioned this canon in 2008 when he was speaking to the primates of all the Orthodox churches at the Phanar. He hosted them there in 2008. I read his statement. I see nothing in here regarding the imposition of an agenda from him. I’m wondering if we could listen to what he has to say, and he says:
Our unity depends on our conscience. We are not able to impose a unity from anything above us. The sense of need and duty that we constitute a single canonical structure and body, one Church, is sufficient to guarantee our unity, without any external intervention.
That was Patriarch Bartholomew’s own words, and this is exactly what we agree with.
Mr. Allen: But you would not disagree, I would assume—and please do if you do disagree—that one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the New Rome, is to call together all of the brother and sister patriarchates to deal with pan-Orthodox problems and issues, so he has the right to call together all of them and say, “Look, this is a problem and we need to resolve it.”
Fr. Patrick: This is exactly correct.
Mr. Allen: Okay. Fr. Patrick, the Antiochian statement reads in part:
The holy Synod of the patriarchate of Antioch and our Patriarch Youhanna X (it reads “John X”) remained committed to the unity of the patriarchate with all of the Antiochian faithful wherever they are.
In a recent article by Seraphim Danckaert, titled, “A New Ecclesiology for the Orthodox Church,” Seraphim posits—and many have agreed with this—that by rejecting the canonical norms of “one bishop, one city, one church,” jurisdictions like Moscow, Bulgaria, and some would now argue Antioch, seem to be advocating for a new ecclesiology whereby, in Seraphim Danckaert’s words, “the pastoral ministry and authority of an autocephalous Orthodox church is not limited to a specific place. On the contrary, the Church exists to serve a particular people.” So isn’t this idea of no geographical boundaries and serving our faithful wherever they are a violation of the canons of the apostles and other canonical decrees that call for clear ecclesiastical territories?
Fr. Patrick: Yes, I read this essay, and it is a typical expression of American idealism. The sentiments in the essay point ahead to a state of affairs ideal and wonderful to contemplate. Once again, I would like to stress that these things cannot be achieved superficially. They must be achieved through the blood, sweat, and tears of inter-relational settlements, of reconciliations, of agreements, of knowledge of one another. Look, we have to break bread and eat together. We have to weep together. We have to learn who we are, one with the other. And there must be, then, born out of that, the groundwork or framework for real respect and mutuality that can lead to the establishment of these canonical norms. Look, we do not argue against the principle of “one bishop, one city.” This is obvious. The holy Tradition speaks of it, and we see all the settled churches, the autocephalous churches of antiquity, with this arrangement. There’s no question about it. We’re just not there yet, here in America, and we must be patient and we must keep the long view that’s based on the foundational values. This is what Metr. Joseph insists on. Organization without the deeper foundation of shared evangelical values is building a house on sand, as we’ve used this image many times.
Mr. Allen: Fr. Patrick, as we know, our 12 Orthodox jurisdictions in America, when they came into this country, were historically based on historic and national bases. Some still are, more or less. Aren’t jurisdictions based on national and ethnic grounds a form of at least neophyletism, that is, setting up of Orthodox churches for specific nationality and ethnic groups, which was declared a heresy in 1872, which as you know Antioch signed this 1872 document, calling phyletism a heresy. Does it still hold to it, and how does this thing work?
Fr. Patrick: Well, it’s obvious that we hold to this because nobody has ever asked me about my last name and where I come from. I’ve been respected as an archpriest in this Archdiocese, along with many others, so I can tell you the Antiochenes, we children of Antioch, have always abided by, and always have dear to us—it’s in our blood—to resist any kind of mono-phyletism. This is against everything we stand for. We’re truly apostolic in our view here.
As for the American context, keep in mind: This is the country where people from all over the world come to for freedom to exercise their religion. Look, these poor people that have come as immigrants, with poverty, with all of their household on their back over the decades and centuries that they’ve come here, they came speaking only their own language, maybe, and no English. They looked for a priest that could help them in their sorrow and bury their parents and take care of their children and teach them the faith. So we have a history in this country that comes from many, many backgrounds. In Orthodoxy, we are now in an advanced state of living together, and we’re getting used to each other. The children of the grandparents that spoke only those languages speak only English now, and we have that shared in our churches. It’s just a matter of time. We must be patient and let this process fully work out completely. Look, in the Old World I can point to the conversion of the Bulgars or the conversion of the Slavs. It took centuries for these churches to organize themselves properly in relationship to their mother church, Constantinople. So it takes time, and not only happy. Sometimes there were wars between these people, and other times there were strong evangelistic outreaches. History can teach us a lot if we’ll take the time to listen to its lessons.
Mr. Allen: So, Father, as we’re coming to a close, would it be fair to summarize the Antiochian position—and correct me if you don’t like these words—that we’re not against unity, but not this way, and not right now?
Fr. Patrick: This is a very good way to put it. I think I could stand with that, as long as we stress these points: The Church of Antioch in this North American land has not reversed her stand in re the canonical unity of the holy Orthodox Church here. This is our background. Nor is she now doing it, nor will she do it in the future. The facts speak for themselves. Ours is the church that shows the most hospitality to seekers. Our ancient patriarchate has always been trans-ethnic and multicultural, from apostolic times on down. And, to boot, ours has been through the present moment, the suffering Church, bearing in our body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
The chief obstacle to unity in this land is a lack of seriousness about it, according to the canonical terms. The horse goes before the cart: first the values, then the structure. All the Orthodox have an authentic part in forming this effective unity, not just one church. That is to say, unity is not based upon one outmoded culture, however romantic a view of that by-gone culture, or by an innovative or extreme interpretation of the canons, such as Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Our new Metropolitan Joseph insists on speaking the truth in love, to use St. Paul’s beautiful words, and the Episcopal Assembly, as it is now operating—notice I say “operating,” not as it’s constituted to operate—it cannot succeed, because it is not an arena of mutual respect and equality among the hierarchs. This must be fixed. When one church insists on dominating the agenda and the proceedings, no possible way forward remains toward authentic Orthodox confraternity and its resultant unity. Unity begins with confraternity and mutual respect. This is the position of our Metr. Joseph.
Mr. Allen: And my guest on today’s program has been the Very Rev. Patrick O’Grady, speaking on behalf of the Antiochian Archdiocese of North America. Fr. Patrick, thank you very much for speaking clearly and with courage with me today on Ancient Faith Today.
Fr. Patrick: It’s a joy to be with you, Kevin.
Mr. Allen: Thank you, and thanks to my producer and engineer, John Maddex, and my researcher and editor, Michelle Mar, and thank you for listening.
And I’d like to thank Fr. Patrick O’Grady again for speaking with us on the record regarding this sensitive topic. We realize there are differing views about administrative unity, and we’re open to giving those views exposure on our program. Today, invitations to various representatives of the Assembly of Bishops have been made, and we hope to bring a subsequent interview to you, expressing a different perspective on a future broadcast. And while Ancient Faith Today is part of Ancient Faith Ministries, which is a department of the Antiochian Archdiocese, the views expressed in our interview today or in the future do not necessarily reflect the views of Ancient Faith Ministries.
I’m not sure that was necessary. A LMGTFY link would have sufficed.
Fr Patrick Reardon,
Just to clarify, my approach to interviews is what I would describe as the “Tim Russert” approach. He took and I try to take oppositional positions that listeners have do that the position of the guest is challenged. If I were to interview someone defending the constantinopolitan position I would ask equally challenging questions. My personal position in the interview was not revealed by the questions posed. If I had not asked challenging questions the interview would have come off as an advocacy forum versus a journalistic encounter. My background was in ‘old school’ journalism of the Russert style.
Kevin, for what it’s worth, I very much appreciated your pointed and well-informed questions. It shows that AFR is not an organization of toadies who only throw softballs at the powers-that-be.
Fr Patrick for his part fielded them equally well. You both acquitted yourselves admirably.
I know this is going to upset my former confreres at the OCL, but at the end of the day, I applaud Met Joseph for his courageous and principled stand against submission to Istanbul.
I would be distressed to learn that my comment about the interview was regarded as critical of the interviewer.
If only the national political media would conduct interviews like Kevin Allen. Mr. Allen’s style reminds me of Bob Edwards, formerly the NPR interview voice, who simply asked questions and then let the person being interviewed answer the question.
YES! A text version, slowly readable, maybe even respondable, woud be good.
The amazing thing is that ANYBODY is surprised by this.
It was NEVER going to happen. In the Northwest we have
wonderful unity and the multiple jurisdiction conundrum is
simply not an issue that divides us.
Except on the grounds of:
1) Use of English in the liturgy and overall ethnic content in different parishes (should I recommend that my friend visit a parish in Oregon? Not sure; I’ll have to visit it and see if he would understand what’s going on)
2) Canonical practices of baptism and marriage
3) Finances (you all have separate bank accounts)
4) Hierarchical understanding (who’s your bishop? Metropolitan? Patriarch? What are your _roots_?)
5) Varying canonical guidelines for priests
6) Church discipline (avoid discipline by switching jurisdictions)
And many others. But yeah, except for those, we all work together perfectly.
I don’t know where Americans get the idea that they must be under the thumb of foreign bishops. Orthodox Canon Law says clearly that foreign bishops have no authority outside their own local areas; even Patriarchs. So, what should happen with the Episcopal Ass. in the US? All the bishops should have agreed to sign a document that they were forming their own American Synod to rule their own American parishes without foreign intervention. Basically claiming autocephaly. Then, elect their own leader of this Synod. The foreign Patriarchs would have no real recourse since the American bishops were following Orthodox Canon Law. When will American Orthodox of all ethnic backgrounds realize this is the only way forward and long overdue. The Diptychs were never meant for any form of church organization and this was only being used by Istanbul so they could rule all of Orthodoxy worldwide. Nice try, but this is not canonical. Istanbul wants to take the American churches from one non-canonical form to another with + Bart in control. Sorry, but many Orthodox will walk with such a non-canonical aberration.
Even if those numbers have been inflated, they are still pitifully small! What a shame! Shame, shame, shame on us for not being the Church, feeding the hungry, preaching the good news, bringing all (not just some of a certain ethnicity) to salvation.
Seriously, some of you Greeks, Slavs, and Middle Easterners have some really big chips on your shoulders! I think you guys just can’t stand the fact that the Anglo-phonic sphere (US, CA, UK, AU, NZ) is far more successful economically, militarily, and socially than your respective countries have ever been! I think this carries over into how you guys do Church politics. I really think you can’t stand the idea of a wealthy, influential, Orthodox Church not being of your ethnicity!
Well said. For myself, I cringe when people say Orthodoxy is our best kept secret. It’s shameful.
It is not shameful.
It is the fullness of truth.
It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
I pray that the sinners in the Church are struggling to increase their physical and spiritual acts of mercy.
But please don’t say it is shameful.
I think Ages meant that it’s shameful that Orthodoxy is such a secret. How do we evangelize when many people don’t even know what the Orthodox Church is?
Helga:
Try to imagine how many curious inquirers come across THIS BLOG and are turned off by the scandal, innuendo, intolerance and fundamentalism they find here.
And the rampant apostasy! Oh heavens!
I think the infighting turns some off. If they are turned off by “intolerance” and “fundamentalism” then they would likely be happier in the Episcopal Church in any case.
Regrettably though, this is a battle being fought in American Orthodoxy because the American Orthodox clergy have been derelict in their duties of catechizing both cradle and convert. Were it otherwise, much of what comes up here would never be written since it would be regarded as a futile, Quixotic, fool’s errand to attempt to modify the Church’s teaching.
October 29, 2015
Holy Synod releases Position Paper on Canonical Regional Planning
SYOSSET, NY [OCA]
The Holy Synod of Bishops has released the text of a Position Paper delivered in response to the plan presented by the Committee for Canonical Regional Planning during the sixth annual meeting of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the USA in Chicago on September 15, 2015. The text was reviewed during the Holy Synod’s fall session held in Detroit October 19-23. [See related stories here and here.]
The text reads as follows.
POSITION PAPER OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AMERICA
IN RESPONSE TO THE PLAN PRESENTED BY THE COMMITTEE FOR CANONICAL REGIONAL PLANNING
Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States
Chicago, Illinois
September 15, 2015
Your Eminences and your Graces,
The Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America is grateful for this opportunity to respond to the latest proposal of the Canonical and Regional Planning Committee for steps toward the administrative unity of our churches in the United States, and thus restoring canonical order to our region. We are especially grateful to the Most Holy Patriarchs and Primates for initiating this process in 2009 and we offer our wholehearted support for the goal expressed by the Pre-Conciliar Conference: “that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church (Decision, 1.a).”
We have been asked to comment on the latest proposal from the Canonical and Regional Planning Committee (CRPC.) Let me state my conclusion at the start. We believe that the three proposals of the CRPC would be best undertaken in the context of an Assembly of Bishops that is worshipping together at the Eucharist and is working provisionally as a Holy Synod of Bishops. Addressing differences in pastoral practices, considering new models for restructuring our dioceses on a canonical basis and integrating the work of our ministries and departments will take place most effectively and organically when we are a Synod meeting together and praying together on a much more regular basis. This is the way of the Church.
In light of this, we fully support the sentiments expressed by His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew, in his Greeting to the Officers of the Episcopal Assembly of North and Central America (September 21, 2010): “After all, what is most critical for us as Orthodox leaders is to apply the theology and traditions that we have received from the Church Fathers, ultimately to practice what we preach about the essential unity of the Body of Christ, which is never divided and which comprises many members even while constituting His One Church.”
It is precisely this application of Orthodox theology and tradition that undergirds our position and our general principle of approach to the question of canonical normalization in our region. Thus, the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America remains committed to the vision of a fully functioning and canonical local Church in our region and humbly restates the position we have had from the beginning: the best solution for this region is one that assumes a canonically and administratively united local Church with a properly functioning Holy Synod as a starting point not an ending point.
We ask our brothers of the Assembly to consider a broader question: For what purpose has God, in His infinite Wisdom and Providence, brought us together in this country? Is it not to “preach the Gospel to every creature”? Is it not to “share our spiritual wealth … with others who are deprived of these blessings,” as Saint Tikhon said when he served here? Our Lord Jesus Christ prays to the Father and asks that “they may be one, as we are.” How is this to be realized if we place limits on our responsibility to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?
We submit that the most clear and direct path to the goal of canonical unity at this stage is to transform the Assembly into a truly ecclesial body, a Synod of Bishops. We recommend this to the Assembly and to the Patriarchs for their consideration as the most effective way to fulfill the exhortation of His All Holiness in his video address in Dallas: “To move beyond what is mine and yours, to what is ours.” And we hope that in this period of transition—whether three years or ten years—the Patriarchs and Primates will show flexibility in blessing and overseeing the Assembly to form and oversee such a synod in the United States for the building up of the witness and mission of the Orthodox Church in this country.
Is it not time for us, as the Bishops of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States of America to take upon ourselves that heavy burden and wider responsibility by concentrating our efforts, not on a limited exercise in cooperation, but on a more ambitious (and difficult) goal of true unity on an administrative level?
Nevertheless, we are both grateful to His Eminence, Archbishop Nicholae and the members of the CRP Committee for the proposal that we are presently considering. We also recognize the urgency of offering a plan to the upcoming Council as requested by Chambésy and fully endorse this direction. While we agree in principle with the Committee’s proposal, we fear that the strategy of developing a model in a given localized territory within our region is presently too amorphous and needs much more fleshing out, with guidelines, to ensure its viability. It would seem that the most critical need is to work on those differences in pastoral praxis that seem to be paralyzing our progress in formulating a plan. It seems difficult to conceive how the strategy of developing a model in a given area would succeed without first overcoming these obstacles – not because we, as the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America hold this position, but because so many of the other hierarchs do. We believe our meeting this week should concentrate heavily on resolving this aspect of the proposal.
Again, in agreement with the last point on greater cooperation and integration of jurisdictional ministries and departments, we concur with such work in the areas of Christian Education and Youth Ministry. However, with such a priority of focus on recent immigration by some jurisdictions, we cannot see how a common vision of Evangelization and Outreach can practically be achieved.
Finally, as His Eminence, Archbishop Michael said at our 2014 meeting, we believe that for all of our work to be truly blessed and accomplish its purpose, we need now to celebrate together as hierarchs the Holy Liturgy, witnessing among ourselves and to all of America our common Eucharistic unity, and imploring the Holy Spirit to guide us together in achieving the administrative unity that Scripture and canonical Tradition demands, and that our clergy and faithful so fervently desire. Our Lord reminds us clearly, “Without Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:5).
Respectfully submitted,
+ TIKHON
Archbishop of Washington
Metropolitan of All America and Canada
On behalf of the entire Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America
Gregory writes:
Yes, I mostly agree, but disagree with you that just because the EP and Moscow kept their heads down didn’t mean they didn’t fight. You don’t survive all these years by being up front with everything. This not only how the EP survived but the Greeks as well and by the end of the Ottoman Empire the Greeks were pretty much running things even though the Turks were still in change.
Yet, you alluded to something that America needs Turkey. Do you think America trusts Turkey? Wouldn’t America want to have eyes and ears in Turkey? Just speculating don’t you think that the State Department might, JUST MIGHT, have some assets in and connected with the EP? Not that I would personally know. Just speculating.
The Russian Government is cozt with the MP. Who do you think the U.S. Government is cozy with in Turkey? Granted it would be a completely different relationship, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the State Department didn’t have certain connections in and around the EP.
We see what we want to see and a lot of times that isn’t much.
Peter
The political dynamics in Turkey have changed. Erdogan won the most recent snap election with huge numbers but the people have perhaps unwittingly made him a virtual dictator. I don’t know what kind of relationship Erdogan has with the E.P. His re-election and his new power are going to prove to be difficult for the Russian foreign office. More and more observers have begun to credit Lavrov and his foreign office team with brilliant strategies of late. Let’s see how he handles this new development. Also, Erdogan’s new powers may make him difficult for the Phanar to get along with. I just don’t know how friendly the two are. To paraphrase Jeeves, there are too many imponderables. I have become fascinated with all of the developments in the Middle East and I try to keep up with it as best I can but it’s like watching a chess match with one board and 6 players! As far as the E.P. is concerned I think he can only worry about his own strategy vis-a-vis world Orthodoxy. The State Department will help him out against the M.P. as best they can but they undoubtedly rather see Putin fail first, then they’ll need the E.P. to help out with the undermining of the ROC.
Yes, I agree. You are correct.
I found this interesting:
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/320878-saudia-arabia-russia-politics/
And so the fact that the CIA or State Department might use the Phanar gives the Phanar power? Unless the Phanar wants to be persecuted, endure assassination attempts, have its former churches converted to mosques and its cries to open up its seminary ignored, then there is little evidence that the Phanar is reaping anything from this relationship short of survival by the skin of their teeth.
BTW, to what state secrets of the Turkish government do you think the patriarchate might be privy? I mean, ones that the American embassy in Turkey and undercover “tourists” would not be able to discern. Ah, I get it, Pat. Bartholomew runs a network of Greek agents, posing as Turks, who have infiltrated . . .
Come on.
I think the RF has its control of the MP or “Influence” just as the US and other Western powers may have their “Influence” on the EP. However, for both that “Influence” only goes as far as Church and State interests align. If they do not then its a different story.
Peter
The extent of symphonia between church and state in Russia right now is very tame compared to the relationship in Orthodox history. If you don’t like the relation now, you would hate the Eastern Roman Empire and Imperial Russia.
Misha! That’s right! “Symphonia” enabled all the atrocities of Iconoclasm very effectively. Only Orthodox Churches lucky enough to be under the protection of Islam–like those wax mastic masterpieces of the Monastery of St Catherine on Mt Sinai, and those in families like that of St John of Damascus (Vizier of the Umayyad Caliph of Baghdad) escaped the terrorist tactics of the Byzantine Symphonia! That wonderful Symphonia enabled the Uniate Emperor and Patriarch to FOIST the Greek, Metropolitan Isidor on Russia, until Moscow had enough , drove him out, and elected their own pious Russian to the See of Kiev.
The Symphonia in Russia gave us the spectacle of schismatics either BEING burned at the stake or burning THEMSELVES alive in the controversy over Rites.
Many Monomachian habitues go all weak-kneed and misty-eyed over “Symphonia” and Monarchy even though even the Jewish monarchy was a CONCESSION by God to the flabbiness of His people. Go figure!
Well I have to say I agree with the good bishop’s main point. I usually call this the curse of Constantine. The Symphonic Model was not and is not all it was cracked up to be.
Peter
Of course, Vladyka. And being called the “son of David” was a curse.
MISHA, i THINK YOU ARE MISTAKEN. WHERE DID YOU HEAR THAT ONE? THAT THE MONARCHY WAS A CONCESSION BY GOD IS PLAIN IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Your Grace, according to Samuel, the monarchy was definitely a “concession” by God but so is everything else that God allowed man: including the eating of meat, the wearing of animal skins, government in general and even marital monogamy.
The question is which form of government is best suited for man in his fallen state? The Fathers of the Church generally conceded that monarchy most clearly mirrored the hierarchical order found in Heaven.
Personally, I prefer republicanism, which was not unlike the commonwealth of pre-monarchic ancient Israel. Unfortunately, as our own Founding Fathers stated, our republic was only capable of serving a nation of virtuous –and believing–men. We’ve clearly slipped the bonds of those restraints.
Even republics have monarchs. They just select and treat them differently.
And all monarchies are dependent on popular support, i.e., the will of the people, so the difference between monarchy and democracy must be based on something else.
(Of course, you meant polygamy. Monogamy is natural and therefore not a concession.)
This is a common, but tired, argument: that God gave kingship, i.e., monarchical government as an institution, to the children of Israel as a punishment, “in mine anger.” (Hos 13:11) That this is not so is apparent from a couple facts: first, that the historical passage clearly states that the Israelites wanted a king “like the other nations”, not just a king per se, since of course they had God as their king, and that “by a prophet the Lord brought Israel up out of Egypt, and by a prophet he was guarded.” (Hos 12:13). St Cyril of Alexandria explains: “You, on the contrary, refused to serve under God, and shouted out to the blessed prophet Samuel, “See, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your way. Install a king now over us to judge us, like the other nations.”
As well, that God didn’t hate kingship per se is evidenced by the fact that Samuel – an anointed prophet of God – anointed David as a King “after God’s own heart”, as we know now who was a type of Christ, who, it should be mentioned didn’t eschew kingship at all, but simply showed the proper mode of its assumption. After all, he didn’t say the “judgeship of God” or the “people’s voice of God” is at hand, but the “kingly reign of God is at hand.”
And, finally, were kingship and monarchy themselves divinely undesirable, then how could the Orthodox episcopate in the 4th century – and our liturgical services no less! – laud without exception the authoritative kingly rulership of Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, and so on? One would think that such men as would deny earthly musical instruments to divine worship would also have vetoed earthly kings in favor of the One Heavenly King Jesus – but they did no such thing. Not one peep.
Saul was the concession, not his kingship. A king *like the nations* was the concession out of wrath, not a king at all.
Bishop,
Samuel’s sons screwed up as judges; moreover, they were hardly representative leaders. Then the people asked for a “king like other nations”. After hearing the righteous complaints of the people against the sons of Samuel, God relented and ordered a king to be anointed to rule over them in place of the corrupted theocracy which was in place. But He said that “the king” who was to rule would be as bad as Samuel’s sons:
8 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.
2 Now the name of his firstborn was Joel; and the name of his second, Abiah: they were judges in Beersheba.
3 And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment.
4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,
5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.
6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord.
7 And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.
9 Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.
10 And Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people that asked of him a king.
11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.
18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.
19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;
20 That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.
21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord.
22 And the Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city.
– 1 Samuel 8
But God chose Saul Himself to be King, the king who would fulfill HIs prophecies about “the king” to come:
“17 And when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same shall reign over my people.
18 Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, where the seer’s house is.” – 1 Samuel 9: 17-18
Then this new king did the same things that Samuel’s sons were accused of doing, and worse. But this was particular to Saul, a bad king, although some of the things listed would apply to any centralized form of government.
Then came David who, though he too sinned, was remembered by the Israelites as a model leader, one of the titles of the awaited Messiah being “the son of David”.
Nothing other than authoritarian rule was ever contemplated in ancient Israel except for a brief period around the time of the judges when “everyone did what was right in his own sight” (Judges 21:25. A disastrous state of affairs, much like modern democracy which the Fathers considered a form of anarchy and/or polytheism.
I know that modernist propaganda labels monarchy as a concession by God (from what higher form of government? Certainly not democracy? From a purer theocracy?). Yet that was the form of government not only endorsed by the Church but upon which Christianity itself is based at its heart.
Consider the term “Messiah”. What does it mean? Literally, it means “Anointed”. But that ignores the connotation it had in Hebrew thought. The full phrase is “ha-Melekh, ha-Mashiah”, i.e., the Anointed King. Early Hellenistic Christians would have simply understood “Christos” to mean “King”. Thus, contrary to your low opinion of monarchy, when the first Christians were called “Christianoi” at Antioch, a normal hearer of the term would think, “Monarchists”, followers of King Yeshua/Iesus.
“The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy, aka, democracy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games. For anarchy is disorder: and polyarchy implies factious division, and therefore anarchy and disorder. Both these lead in the same direction – to disorder; and disorder leads to disintegration; for disorder is the prelude to disintegration. What we honor is monarchy…” – St. Gregory the Theologian
* * *
The Holy Fathers and Church writers of this period unanimously supported the monarchical order, and condemned democracy for religious reasons. Thus Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea wrote: “The example of monarchical rule there is a source of strength to him. This is something granted to man alone of the creatures of the earth by the universal King. The basic principle of kingly authority is the establishment of a single source of authority to which everything is subject. Monarchy is superior to every other constitution and form of government. For polyarchy, where everyone competes on equal terms, is really anarchy and discord. This is why there is one God, not two or three or even more. Polytheism is strictly atheism. There is one King, and His Word and royal law are one.”[2]
The Holy Fathers agreed with Eusebius. Thus St. Gregory the Theologian wrote: “The three most ancient opinions about God are atheism (or anarchy), polytheism (or polyarchy), and monotheism (or monarchy). The children of Greece played with the first two; let us leave them to their games. For anarchy is disorder: and polyarchy implies factious division, and therefore anarchy and disorder. Both these lead in the same direction – to disorder; and disorder leads to disintegration; for disorder is the prelude to disintegration. What we honour is monarchy…”[3]
“What we honour is monarchy…” That certainly appears to imply that monarchism is part of the Orthodox world-view, even if it does not figure in any of the Creeds.
We find the same in the Fathers of the fifth century. Thus Archbishop Theophan of Poltava writes: “St. Isidore of Pelusium, after pointing out that the God-established order of the submission of some to other is found everywhere in the life of rational and irrational creatures, concludes from this: ‘Therefore we are right to say that the matter itself – I mean power, that is, authority and royal power – are established by God.”[4]
Again, in the eighth century St. Theodore the Studite wrote: “There is one Lord and Giver of the Law, as it is written: one authority and one Divine principle over all. This single principle is the source of all wisdom, goodness and good order; it extends over every creature that has received its beginning from the goodness of God…, it is given to one man only… to construct rules of life in accordance with the likeness of God. For the divine Moses in his description of the origin of the world that comes from the mouth of God, cites the word: ‘Let us create man in accordance with Our image and likeness’ (Genesis 1.26). Hence the establishment among men of every dominion and every authority, especially in the Churches of God: one patriarch in a patriarchate, one metropolitan in a metropolia, one bishop in a bishopric, one abbot in a monastery, and in secular life, if you want to listen, one king, one regimental commander, one captain on a ship. And if one will did not rule in all this, there would be no law and order in anything, and it would not be for the best, for a multiplicity of wills destroys everything.”[5]
–
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/273/must-an-orthodox-christian-be-a-monarchist/
So much for modernism.
The thought that the EP is being “used as a CIA asset” in Turkey is rather humorous. Although, the US and its various “agencies” have made use of the EP, an arrangement that the EP has welcomed. Some time back, there was a lengthy article on the Greek Archdiocese website about Truman & Patriarch Athenagoras. The article noted that the US had, indeed, used the Phanar throughout the Cold War as a “counterweight” to Russian and Soviet “influence” within Orthodoxy. The article concluded by almost begging the US to “use us again, PLEASE!” Rather shameless … and while there was a disclaimer stating the Greek Archdiocese does not necessarily support bla bla bla … they don’t publish Old Calendarist position papers either … at any rate, as Patriarch Bartholomew has met, discussed global warming, and prayed “ecumenically” with the Archbishop of Canterbury, it can be surmised that the Phanar is, “again,” being used, or eager to be used as an adjunct to US Foreign Policy … against The Bad Russians. Which is fine by me, as the Phanar only further marginalizes itself, and becomes more irrelevant than it already is as time goes by, and can join “Progressive Christians” in some union under the Pope …
And, I also must say that there ain’t NO ethnophyletism like dat good ole American ethnophyletism! We do have Americans “running” a Church! The OCA! Ooopps! Not the best advertisement for The American Autocephalous Church, huh? Which will NEVER exist as long as the Phanar has anything to say about it! I mean … let the Barbarians run the show? Well! I never!
The network of Greek agents ran by Patriarch Bartholomew are actually trying to infiltrate Orthodoxy … without a great deal of success, it seems!
The network of Russian agents called communists has infiltrated Orthodoxylophone and have succeeded.
Peter
I agree George. Although I hope we won’t have any defections because they will be so sorely needed in the ROC to curb it’s fundamentalism and bring the ROC back to a stable and normative form of Orthodoxy.
Peter
Make up your mind, Peter — what is the Russian Orthodox Church? Godless communist agents (see your post just above) or unstable fundamentalists (see your post immediately above)? This is getting amusing…
Why not both? The ROC came out of over 70 years of communism where it was infiltrated and controled by the State. Once freed it went to the extreme in the other direction. The ROC has a lot of baptized people, but people that barely know their faith so they cling to external traditions and Russian Nationalism.
So like I said before the ROC in Russia, not ROCOR, still has a lot of issues to resolve. I read an article on this that I will post so you can read it.
Peter
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2015/11/a-church-of-empire
Here is the article Edward. Enjoy.
Peter
Misha states:
Wow! I will just let that stand on its own. On a side note I do hope Misha is NOT a paid Russian Government troll: http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/01/paid-govt-and-corporate-internet-trolls-are-real/
I do so hope that he is simply delusional and a Hyper-Nationalist because if he’s a paid troll for Russia then Mother Russia’s propaganda really knows no bounds!
Peter
Peter,
That is probably the truest most honest thing I ever wrote. I thought twice before posting it because sometimes not all truths need to be spoken out of deference to charity. But that is the exact nature of the project of the Phanar and its devotees. And it is very, very ugly.
If that is the most honest thing you wrote then God help us all, especially if others believe in that tripe.
Peter
Peter,
When I wrote what I did above, and reflected upon it, probably at least a half a dozen specific examples came to mind which would prove to any objective observer that my thesis – that omogenia is a higher value to the Greek leadership than the gospel – is demonstrably true. And I’m just talking about from the 19th century forward. I have in mind newspaper reports of “Greeks only” GO churches in America, the phyletist council of 1872, the events surrounding the Evangelical Orthodox Church around 1987, and a number of other such blots. This is setting aside the canon 28 claim and the Phanar’s apostasy to save its empire at the Council of Florence.
However, I have begun to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about. I think you only know what you have been told by Greek, Inc. and are therefore woefully ignorant of Greek Orthodox history in some of its ugly particulars. I don’t even think you understand the difference between what the Phanar is saying and the MP is saying regarding jurisdiction in the diaspora. So I will refrain at this time from composing an indictment which would hairlip Jesus.
Also, just in passing, I should say: It is really only New Calendar Greeks under Constantinople who defend the Phanar’s shenanigans that I oppose. I’m a fan of Athos and the Athonite monasteries as well as an admirer of the Old Calendar Greeks, though they of course have their own problems. Abp. Chrysostomos of Etna is a favorite of mine. I have a text of three chapters on “Orthodox Etiquette” composed by Greek Old Calendarists which I use as one of my go to’s in case of doubt on some particular point. They are much more reliable on most points of doctrine than GOARCH or the Phanar. I thought the text had been written by someone in ROCOR until I got more than half way through it and came across a line about how zapifka is a custom in the Russian Church but not in “our Greek churches”. The author even used the Russian term, “edinovertsy” to describe those in the Church Abroad. Pity that that relationship has not survived the reunion with Moscow.
Another stand alone gem. Well at least you don’t throw the Greek Old Calendarists under the bus like other shave saying that ROCOR was nothing like them when they were the same. I’ll let you debate that one with Edward and other ROCOR faithful.
In the end I admire your fanatical devotion, too bad it could not have been for the Gospel. Cultures come and go the Gospel always remains. Good luck with your Third Rome. You are going to need it.
Peter
Misha,
I certainly wouldn’t suggest, as Peter has done, that you might be a paid troll for Mother Russia but…….well….you wouldn’t happen to know how much that would pay would you. Not that you would know because as I said I don’t believe you are one. But if you were one, how much would you expect to be paid. Social Security doesn’t really pay all that well you see and, well, I don’t know much about trolling, at least on the internet, but I could learn. So, anyway, if you find out anything, ask George for my ultra-secret email and let me know.
Your
comradebrother in Christ,GrigoriGregoryGregory,
Too amusing! I have no idea having never inquired or been contacted. I don’t know if they would like my politics, in any case. First, though I do like Putin, I am no small “d” democrat and make no compunctions about it at all. I am a convinced monarchist. I can defend “sovereign democracy” but only as a stepping stone. Though if they figure out the succession/stability problem it might be a stepping stone that lasts some considerable time.
Secondly, I am frank about the authoritarian nature of Russian society as a result of the policy regarding the media. Here, the media function as a fourth branch of government, the most powerful in my estimation. There is not a lot of difference in function with the Russian media when there is a Democrat president and Democratic chambers of Congress. Everyone is on the same team except a loyal-opposition type press (Fox, WSJ, etc). However, when Republicans are in charge the press mood changes overnight to overt hostility.
I’m frank (and admiring) of Putin’s policy of “occupying the field” when it comes to the press. It fosters national unity and it obviously works if you look at his poll numbers. There is an independent press, but Putin makes sure that the loudest and most prevalent voice is supportive of the government or, at least, is not unnecessarily contrarian. This helps to solve the problem that the Church Fathers saw with democracy/polyarchy, the factionalism, disintegration and eventual anarchy that ensues.
In short, I don’t think the RF needs a mouthpiece quite as frank as I am – at least not at this time. However, if I come across any opportunities, I will pass them along to you. [insert smiliey face]
Thanks Misha.
In anticipation of a future as a putin troll I came up with the moniker “Kremlin Stooge”. Alas it has already been taken.
I’m always looking for an extra income stream, as long as I have creative and editorial control. Sign me up. Gregory, if you are really serious about needing cash and have no scruples, perhaps you could set up a bidding war between the EP troll-masters and the MP’s. Peter could perhaps give you the particulars from the other side. (Insert two smilies. ..)
I would love to. Contact me at your convenience. I’m actually listed on the net unlike Misha and Edward.
Peter
Misha:
Wait a minute, didn’t the RUSSIAN patriarchs take the side of the communists against the Church of Russia? Give credit where credit is due!
Not the hierarchs of ROCOR (insert smiley face). And it is more accurate to say that the Russian patriarchs compromised with the Soviet government in order to allow the Church to continue. I was referring to the Phanar’s endorsement of the Living Church and its condemnation of Pat. Tikhon.
Keep moving those goal post Misha, keep moving them.
Peter
Misha will defend Russia even when it was run by the Godless!
Peter
Absolutely, because Russia has never been godless even when it was run by godless usurpers. I have never defended the Soviet government though.
Like I said keep moving those goal posts. Holy Russian can do no wrong.
Mr Papoutsis: “The ROC has a lot of baptized people, but people that barely know their faith so they cling to external traditions and Russian Nationalism.”
Replace “ROC” with “EP,” and “Russian” with “Greek,” and there you have the Canon 28ers edifices in N. America, W. Europe, & Australia
And the whole of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Third Rome bs. Yes I agree.
Peter A. Papoutsis
Here’s the thing, Peter. No one in the ROC bothers with the title “Third Rome”, despite your repeated lies to the contrary. You have found nothing and will find nothing on this count. It is purely in your head.
When Rome was great by worldly standards, “Rome” meant something. When Constaninople became the “New Rome”, “Rome” still meant something in living memory. When a lone monk in a letter to the tsar wrote what he did about “Third Rome”, “New Rome” was still a living memory. These titles mean less than nothing anymore, utterly empty boasting of long dead glories.
Yet that is all the Phanar has. Russia has a revived Christian state and a revived Church. It is far, far from perfect. Yet any state and church in its newfound position would do exactly the same thing. What Greeks are hopelessly jealous of is the worldly power the Russians have newly found and the newly found place of the ROC within this emerging world power. They would kill for such a development for the Greeks. Thus projections of “Third Rome” as a kind of sour grapes.
Yet it’s all petty and utterly small minded.
Title? No, most times. Actions? Yes. I agree what Moscow is doing is nonsense and it should stop. Unfortunately it won’t and people will not see its errors until it’s too late.
As to sour grapes, what sour grapes? I don’t even like the EP doing what it’s doing with Canon 28. I want just the Gospel and Orthodoxy. You can keep your nationalism.
In the GOAA, OCA and AOA we have a vast majority of non-ethnics. They and the rest of us need a Patriarch that will lead us, but also allow us to be ourselves with a clear path to independence. I see that with Constantinople, not Moscow.
In fact, I can see that with anyone but Moscow.
George can see Moscow’s Third Rome rhetoric. Why can’t you?
Peter
“George can see Moscow’s Third Rome rhetoric. Why can’t you? ”
Because it’s not there?
I would think that a person who decries “Moscow’s Third Rome bs” could come up with one hierarch who speaks for the Moscow Patriarchate in the last 500 years who has actually said “Moscow is the Third Rome”.
Just one. It would not prove the point but at least it would give you something to stand on.
That you cannot indicates to me that you are a fundamentally dishonest person.
“I want just the Gospel and Orthodoxy.”
And the whole diaspora for Constantinople. A claim Moscow has never ever made. And there’s your “nationalism” and that of the Phanar.
So, hoping to leave this dead end of a conversation I will repeat that Moscow does not now nor has it ever claimed the status of being “Third Rome”, nor has it attempted to change the diptychs to make it the primus, nor has it ever claimed exclusive jurisdiction in the diaspora as has Constantinople – and what I wrote below:
If Patriarch Bartholomew wanted to become beloved by all Orthodox overnight (but probably rejected by “progressives”), he would forget about global warming and canon 28, cheer the spread of the Gospel by any local church (including his own) any place in the diaspora, reform his own local church in terms of orthopraxis, arrange for an Athonite monk to become his successor; reconcile with the Old Calendar Greeks, apologizing for NC Greek atrocities in the past; and break off doctrinal conversations with Rome until they explicitly renounce Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc., though cooperation on moral matters where we agree might continue. Of course, with the first Episcopalian pope, even the moral overlap with Rome may be waning . .
And if frogs had wings . . .
Yes, it is there.
Your blind allegence to Holy Rus and the ROC indicates to me that YOU are a funadamentally dishonest and delusional person.
Fr. Andrew Philips and many in ROCOR and other parts of the Orthodox Church would disagree with you. Why support the Modernist EP when we can support the ex-KGB multimillionair patriarch of Moscow.
Or pigs could fly….
Peter
George and Edward,
I think part of the disconnect between Peter and me has to do with how we think of “Third Rome”. With respect to his equivalency of the Phanar’s canon 28 mythology with any policy of the MP, he is certainly demonstrably and objectively wrong. The MP has never ever claimed exclusive jurisdiction throughout the entire diaspora, yet this is the explicit policy of the Phanar.
Yet on the “Third Rome” issue, when I read Peter writing about “Moscow’s Third Rome bs”, I assume a normal person would be referring to some explicit claim of someone able to speak for the MP; i.e., for example, Met. Hilarion of the DECR stating bluntly, “Moscow is the Third Rome.”. Peter is not going to find anything like that because it’s not there. Nor will he find an effort by the ROC to have Constantinople replaced with Moscow in the diptychs because, again, it’s not there.
However, what Peter seems to mean by “Moscow’s Third Rome bs” is the rebirth of Russia as a world power and the rebirth of the ROC in Russia and in the diaspora. Now, to me, this is a natural course of affairs that has nothing to do with claiming anything regarding “Third Rome”.
Russia was once an empire and had an ROC which had a number of missions abroad, including churches in America and Western Europe. Later, The Soviet Union was a world power and for decades the world was divided between two antagonistic poles. The Red Army at that time could have overrun Western Europe in a conventional war; our nuclear deterrent was what saved it.
So it makes perfect sense that, relieved of the horrific burden of communism (militant atheism combined with a rather absolutist, totalitarian socialism), that a downsized Russia, once again market oriented, still the largest country in area on earth, still blessed with a wealth of natural resources and a formidable military possessing nuclear weapons, would reassert itself among nations as a world power – again, “Third Rome” being an irrelevancy inasmuch as the simple logistics make this predictable regardless of any grand ideology.
It also makes sense that the ROC, having had missions abroad from tsarist times, and having had a total of something like 60,000 churches at the end of the Romanov period, would retool and get back to work after communism hit the dustbin of history – again, “Third Rome” not being a necessary projection for this natural development to take place. The ROC has gone from about 7,000 churches at the end of the Soviet period to over 30,000 today. This is just in Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine.
What Peter seems to mean by “Moscow’s Third Rome bs” isn’t any explicit claim of being the “Third Rome” nor any call for Moscow to replace Constantinople in the diptychs. What Peter seems to be referring to as “bs” is what the RF and the ROC actually happen to be doing in terms of revitalization and missionizing.
Yet that is not “bs”. It is not anyone’s empty claim. It is what you are seeing with your own eyes in the news each day. If that is what Peter means by “Third Rome” then it is well underway in reality.
In brief, if “Moscow’s Third Rome bs” is a claim by Moscow to excusive jurisdiction in the diaspora or a claim to replace Constantinople in the diptychs, then this “bs” is nonexistent. But if this “bs” is the revival of the Russian state and ROC, then it is no “bs” but rather history unfolding.
And it is also true that some out there really detest this reality.
Russia and Moscow’s Third Rome bs is its engaged propaganda to being the savior of the Christian and moral world and the rightful heir to rule all of Orthodox Christendom. That’s what fm Patriarch Tikhon articulated, what Fr. Andrew Phillips has written and never censored, and what Misha and Others believe about a resurgent Russia.
I have urged caution and that has been disregarded. I have given concrete examples that have been ignored, so now people will embrace this Russian Uber propaganda and much disappointment and pain will ensure. The Gospel is not Russian or Greek, the Gospel is the Gospel and it is being sacrificed at the altar of nationalism.
Lord have mercy.
Peter
Misha, this is worthy of being the last word on the subject… almost. I would point out that you, perhaps out of charity, minimize the Phanar’s actual claims. They go beyond exclusive jurisdiction over the diaspora. In addition:
1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate claims that in the person of the Ecumenical Patriarch, there is a status of “first without equals.” To be clear, it is not at this time a claim of papal-like authority, but it is a distinct departure from language that has been used in the past in the Orthodox Church.
2. The EP claims sole authority to grant and revoke autocephaly, and not just in the diaspora, but also with regard to local Orthodox Churches that date back to an era before there was a diaspora. It only recognizes autocephaly after the EP itself has granted a Tome, even if autocephaly was already widely recognized by other autocephalous churches, and does not consider it necessary for other autocephalous churches to also grant a Tome once it has done so.
3. I am unaware of explicit statements that it considers itself to have the right to carve out autocephalous churches from the territory of other autocephalous churches, but its maneuverings in the Ukraine demonstrate that it probably does believe this to be the case. This is probably why ancient patriarchates like Alexandria and Antioch, and other autocephalous churches, have made a point of sending representatives (and in some cases, the primates themselves) to serve at MP churches in the Ukraine, explicitly affirming that the UOC-MP is the only canonical body that they recognize. The EP has been notably absent from these shows of solidarity, and indeed, clergy under the jurisdiction of the EP have gone into that canonical territory and concelebrated with schismatics, doubtless as a test balloon to see what the response would be. (They found out.)
As your eloquent post shows, there is really no comparison, much as Peter tries to establish otherwise by repeating the same things over and over without having any proof to back it up — presumably because there is none.
I have no doubt that the MP has embraced a position of world leadership, just as it had such leadership prior to the revolution because of its size and wealth. But it was always a leadership of deeds.
Even when the Russian Empire was at its peak and the Russian Church had immense resources of money and people and political clout behind it, and even when the subjugated eastern patriarchates were highly dependent on it financially, it never once attempted to change the order of the diptychs. The example of Constantinople leapfrogging past Alexandria and Antioch because of the secular political status of the city would have given them plenty of ammunition had they chosen to press the point. But Russia never did, and you won’t see it now, either.
I served in the military, and it wasn’t uncommon that a senior officer would have a junior officer or even NCO who was smarter, more of a leader, and more talented than he. The men would look to that that junior person for leadership. If the senior officer was smart and confident, he treated the junior guy as a partner and rode him to glory. The junior guy, being smart and talented, tried to make his superior look good and always treated him with due respect and deference, both in front of the men and privately.
I won a couple of big awards because my talented NCO’s basically won them for me. I was grateful to them and they were happy for me and proud of what we accomplished together. No egos anywhere to be found.
If the senior officer, however, was small-minded or had an inferiority complex, he was threatened by the junior guy’s popularity and abilities, and made it his mission in life to thwart and cut the guy down to size at every opportunity. Everybody lost — and the mission itself sufeed the most.
There is the parable — and a true one at that. He who has ears to hear… as was once said.
Edward, excellent post.
Edward, Misha, Peter, et all: I think my original point has been lost. The concept of “the Third Rome” was to be understood eschatologically. According to the teaching of the Church (as opposed to arch-heretics like Cyrus Scofield, Hal Lindsey and John Hagee), the Millennium was the Church age, not some future event in which Jesus rules from Jerusalem for a thousand years. This age lasted from the time of Constantine to that of the last Christian emperor (Nicholas II). The restraints placed upon Satan were broken, hence the horrible bloodshed of the Twentieth Century, the most blood-stained in history.
It was not triumphalism at all, just a statement of theological understanding.
The question now is whether the “Third Rome” went into a period of hibernation/Tribulation (the 70 year Bolshevik regime) and as such still exists encompassing an atheist interregnum or it literally ended in 1918.
If the first scenario is true, then God, in His providence allowed a cleansing of the Church (which included the aristocracy and intelligentsia of Russia) in anticipation of a newly-crowned Emperor in order to continue to confound the plans of the Anti-Christian conspiracy. If the second is true, then the Christian resurgence in Russia is the interregnum which allows a remnant of Christendom to survive the real Tribulation (which is to come). Putin’s geostrategic gains are merely transitory in this event. The are a shadow of what was in fact the Third Rome (which fell one hundred years ago).
As much as I would prefer the first scenario, my gut instinct is that the prophecies of the Athonite elders (Ss Paissius, Joseph the Hesychast and others) is that the latter is true. Or more accurately reflects reality more realistically.
Regardless, there is nothing triumphal about Third Rome theology. Nor is there anything anti-Hellenic about it for that matter. It just is what it is, whether it ended in 1918 or it merely went into a dormition (so to speak).
I agree with your post George, but still disagree with Edward and Misha. I unfortunately want to give the benefit of the doubt to Moscow and Russia but IMHO it’s still run by communists and totalitarians and Secular Russia and the ROC have much bigger (I.e. Jurisdictional) claims.
You actually admit and clearly apply Third Rome to Russia and The ROC. I also agree with you about the coming Antichrist regime, but to say that is to say that clerical hegemony is meaningless because of the coming apostasy which will include Russia. It will include the whole world.
So why does the ROC care? However it does and is willing to break the good order of the church over it.
In any event if and when the Great council happens this issue needs to be resolved. Hopefully to no one’s liking which will mean it will be a good decision.
Peter
It won’t be a “Great Council”. They’ve already scuttled that with the rules of representation. Thus, they won’t achieve anything binding in any case. Moreover, they have already agreed (or the last word I heard anyway) to only taking decisions by consensus, which means nobody’s going to be particularly disappointed and little if anything of consequence will happen.
Assuming this photo-op materializes, that is.
but still disagree with Edward and Misha.
What’s to disagree with? I have made not one pie in the sky claims about the ROC or about Russia. All I have done is two things:
1. I have repeated the openly stated claims of the EP and said I disagree (along with the rest of the Orthodox world) — you claim yourself to disagree with these positions of the EP.
2. I have asked you to prove your allegations about the MP, and am still waiting. You know you have provided not one quotation from a Russian hierarch or official spokesman. So what is there to disagree about there, either?
I’m funny that way. People sometime back around here were throwing around accusations about what Abp. Benjamin of the OCA allegedly believed and said vis a vis same sex marriage. I wouldn’t let it drop, and finally it petered out because no one had a shred of proof — not one quotation, either in writing or that they were willing to allege they had heard him say.
People made accusations about what M. Stankovich supposedly thinks on that subject and I challenged them to link me to one quote supporting their assertions. They could not.
And if someone said something about you that I knew couldn’t be supported, I would call them on it. You have read enough of what I write to know this is true.
Edward,
I gave you Fr. Philip’s quote and you stated:
And yet, I quoted to you that:
Where is his censure? Where is Moscow’s outcry at such language? And yet, the Patriarch of Moscow awarded him a jeweled Patriarchal cross! That drumbeat is pretty loud to award Fr. Phillips as such who holds to the THIRD ROME BS AND HAS PUBLISHED IT!
Ivan the Terrible declared when he was crowned in 1547 that Moscow was the “Third and Final Rome.” Edward please give me chapter and verse where the Russian Orthodox Church has denounced this teaching?
Has the Russian Orthodox Church denounced the panegyric letter of Philotheus of 1510? Please give me chapter and verse of such denouncement or renouncement.
How about Patriarch Tikhon? Has the Russian Orthodox Church denounced what he said? Because what he said in 1905 is:
Edward please give me chapter and verse where the current Patriarch or any high ranting officials have denied this? This is Russian’s claim over the American Diaspora. Please YOU GIVE ME CHAPTER AND VERSE WHERE THIS HAS BEEN DENOUNCED AND/OR RENOUNCED.
Fr. Philips still thinks its good to go. So the EP’s Canon 28 is for the EP’s control of the Diaspora. Patriarch Tikhon, thinks its the Russian Church. Now maybe its NOT Third Rome the Patriarch is making reference to, Fr. Philips does that later on in his article, so what is Patriarch Tikhn basing this on? Russia in America First? OK, but it lost that with the 1970 Tomos, Right? If so why was Fr. Philips still believing in it?
In fact, as I have stated before, the ROC via Metropolitan Jonah, was actually attempting to redefine, and in reality destroy, the 1970 Tomos and get the OCA back under its jurisdiction. Read Metropolitan Jonah’s speeches. He wasn’t shy about it. But here is the question? WHY! why would Metropolitan Jonah do this? What would Fr. Philips do this? WHY REUNITE WITH MOSCOW? Because of Moscow’s propaganda that only Holy Rus and the ROC can save the world because of the decadent and immoral west.
2007 ROC united with ROCOR. 2008 till the departure of Metropolitan Jonah the ROC was “strengthening ties” with the OCA. Are you starting to see what the ROC/MP was doing, or do you still need chapter and verse?
See this Newsweek article about how good Russia and Moscow’s propaganda really is:
http://www.newsweek.com/putins-god-squad-orthodox-church-and-russian-politics-64649
Check out the Russian Orthodox Priests that were silenced or criticized because they dared to question the MP and the Kremlin. They dared to want answers as to the deep and abiding legacy of the KGB with both the former and the current MP being involved in the KGB.
How the MP has very expensive taste in Rolex Watches (that disappear), making money off of tobacco, and has a multi-million dollar penthouse. But alas this is all Western media bias and hatred for Russia and the MP. The MP is a humble and religious man, right? While the EP and the Phanar are wicked modernists, right?
The MP is now courting and has been courted by Evangelical Protestants that have and continue to look to him as Christianity’s moral and spiritual leader. Even other Orthodox are doing the very same thing. Wow! That’s not Third Rome at all because its not written out for Edward even though that’s what is happening.
As to how the ROC is noble and pure in its Orthodoxy and all that nonsense I offer you these two articles to read so as to break those rose glasses you wear for all things Russian and Russian Orthodox:
http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/nation/281-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-curse-of-the-mongol-yoke
Also:
http://www.amazon.com/Russian-Challenge-Year-2000/dp/0631153349. Third Rome being used to create a state run Orthodox theofascist state. Is this what you want Edward? I guess hearing the dissident voice is not chapter and verse enough for you, but it is for many in Russia that hold to Orthodoxy and not to a fanatical form of Russian Nationalism.
If you read Yanov’s book you will find that the Russian Mission or Idea as he calls it squares perfectly with the ROC’s Third Rome BS. Read Yanov’s book that talks about Russi in connection with Russian Orthodoxy transforming the world. That;s what Russian and the ROC is doing right now.
Listen you want to buy this go ahead, but I will not.
Read this as well, especially the section called “The Slavic Twist” where the Russian Idea is the Third Rome Concept currently present in Russian Politics and ROC thinking: http://imrussia.org/en/analysis/nation/527-the-birth-of-pan-slavism.
Its all there Edward just open your eyes. Misha has drank this kool-aid deep and is not going to change. You? You still have hope, but if you do not see it in Russia’s and the ROC’s actions no chapter and verse is going to convince you.
Finally, I don’t hate and never will hate the Russian Orthodox Church, but what I do hate is its manipulation by the Russian powers that be both secular and religious. The ROC has done and continues to do much good inside and outside Russia, but it has issues, and those issues need to be dealt with. The ROC is not going to deal with them by uniting with Russian nationalism. I know as I saw it fail on the Greek side.
I am done with this now. as far as I am concerned I proved my point as to Moscow’s hypocrisy and delusion of grandeur. However you can have the last word on this as I am moving on. believe what you want brother, just be careful. That’s all
Take care Edward.
Peter
Peter,
You have proved absolutely nothing whatsoever beyond the fact that a ROCOR priest who had no authority to speak for anyone other than himself, once referred to Moscow as “Third Rome” in a piece where he also referred to it as a “dream”.
He was not under Moscow at the time. He had no authority to speak for Moscow in any case.
Now, you divine that the MP embraces “Third Rome” because they have not reprimanded this priest for an offhand line he wrote before the reunification. You ignore what other good work he might have done and attribute his status or award or whatever in the MP to that one line written long ago.
Lack of censure = endorsement?
Your argument isn’t even weak, it’s hopelessly pathetic. But what I am curious about is why “Third Rome” is a big deal to you. I mean, Rome is in heresy, Constantinople is politically dead, certainly not the center of an empire as it was when it received the title “New Rome”. Why would the fact that Moscow is the only Orthodox country in the world that could claim the title worthily upset you? It’s just a fact that Moscow fits the bill. It’s also a fact that they have not claimed it for hundreds of years, if ever.
The Phanar is so hopelessly dependent on titles like “New Rome” and “Ecumenical Patriarch” because it has no other real power besides dead, anachronistic references. That is why some Greeks project all of this nonsense onto Moscow.
So go on lying Peter. The fact that you have come up with nothing and continue to misrepresent things is an awful reflection on you, not Edward or me.
Once again, until you get it through your thick skull:
Moscow does not claim to be the “Third Rome” and has not done so, if ever, for hundreds of years. The Phanar claims the entire diaspora as its exclusive jurisdiction under canon 28 of the !Vth Council. Russia has never ever done this. Nor is it proposing to replace Constantinople in the diptychs.
Just like you are lying about Russian expansionism and the expansion of the ROC’s Third Rome bs. Sorry to have exposed the ugly underbelly of Russia and the ROC.
However God is in charge and there are a lot of wonderful ROC priest and lay people that don’t buy it themselves and will push in the years to come for a ROC that is not so tied to the State, but obviously tied to the Gospel.
As for weak and pathetic I will let others judge that from reading your pro-Russian and pro-ROC that neither can do no wrong posts. I know the truth hurts Misha, but you have to accept it. Many Carpatho-Russians, Ukranians and even American’s are not buying what Russia and the ROC are selling, but I do admire your salesmanship even if its misguided.
Further, it is endorsement if there is no censure. Patriarch Tikhon’s claim has never been repudiated, even after the 1970 Tomos was given to the OCA, The ROC united with ROCOR and was strengthening ties with the OCA with Metropolitan Jonah. Why do you think the OCA ousted him? Hmmm? The OCA was not buying what Moscow was selling either. I guess in your world that’s NOT Moscow pushing into the American Diaspora. No, no, no.
That’s not pathetic or weak Misha that the truth. So sorry you do not like it. However, if you want to give me chapter and verse where Moscow HAS REPUDIATED the concept of Third Rome I would love to hear it. I think Edward would as well as he would like chapter and verse as well as to that repudiation.
Peter
This is funny, actually. Why would they repudiate something they have never claimed? And is the fact that they have not repudiated something that they have never claimed proof that they actually do claim it? I think you’re chasing your tail.
Peter, this is all quite silly. Moscow is not concerned with the Phanar or the OCA. They have work to do. Nothing you have said could possibly hurt me or the ROC. It’s all par for the course. Just normal white-noise given the mindset of the omogenia.
Carry on with it as long as you like. If it consoles you, you’re welcome to it.
Слава Греции!
Слава героям!
Oh I know they have work to do. That’s what worries me.
Bye.
Peter A. Papoutsis
I won’t bother with the numerous errors and restatements of unsupported allegations in this post. But you have come up with a new one regarding Metr. Jonah. A careful review of the timeline will show that he was getting into deep trouble and conflict with his fellow bishops and the Syosset apparatus. Then, after his position began to become precarious, he tried running to the MP for help. You will notice that none was forthcoming. In short, his attempts to gain favor with the MP were a symptom of the trouble he was in, not its cause.
Excuses, excuses. Ciao!
Not excuses — just a statement of fact. If you can provide evidence that the OCA ousted Metr. Jonah because he was doing just dandy until he started to “strengthen ties” with the Russian Orthodox Church, let’s see it. Again, he was in deep trouble with his fellow bishops long before anything of the like happened. I am beginning to worry about your inability to think logically, and about the ease with which you spin wild tales with nothing behind them but your prejudices.
Edward, Peter is right on this. It has been established that the Synod did not want to elect Jonah as Metropolitan back in October of 2008 but the natives were definitely restless and they were scared witless (as they should have been given their gross mismanagement).
We also know that the conspiracy against Jonah began within a few weeks of his election. I am talking about actual sabotage: the stories are legion.
While I agree with you that Jonah’s closeness to Moscow infuriated Syosset, that was just more fuel for the fire for Syosset as far as they were concerned. But that came a little later, after the conspiracy was well under way.
George, given the content of your post, I think you meant to tell Peter that I am correct about the Jonah timeline, rather than the reverse. His troubles began almost immediately –the Russia stuff came later, and seemed pretty obvious to me as a drowning man looking desperately for any life preserver he could think of.
To mix metaphors, that ship had already sailed. The decision to get rid of him in one form or another had already been made long before he reached out to Moscow.
Edward, this is from last spring’s report of the OCA Department of External Church Relations, regarding the OCA’s relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate. “All indications are that the period of tension and difficulty in relations connected with the retirement of Metropolitan Jonah has been overcome.” (Bottom of page 33/top of page 34)
This is a remarkable admission that the “retirement” of Metropolitan Jonah was enough in itself to impede relations between the MP and OCA. The OCA wouldn’t admit to the existence of tension until they felt it was “overcome,” but you could wonder why the MP valued Metropolitan Jonah enough to cause the tension to begin with.
Facts Shmacks, the episode demonstrated that the OCA was a church in disarray. Whether it was that the Synod elected someone unfit for the task or whether he was fit and they then torpedoed him hardly matters. I think everyone was taking a step back while the OCA got back to flying with wings level and nose no longer pointing down.
I would also point out that the MP is a very centrally oriented church, with the Patriarch having broad powers and authority that the Metropolitan of the OCA doesn’t have. This means a couple of things. First, that the MP would have some cognitive dissonance about having a chief hierarch be treated the way Jonah was. It is just unthinkable to have the Patriarch sent for a psych eval shortly after electing him. Second, that it would be unthinkable for the Russian Synod to elect a Patriarch without experience and a known track record. Kyrill was a known quantity from many pressure cooker years in the DECR, just like Metr. Hilarion is being tried by fire in that same job.
So it doesn’t necessarily mean that the MP thought that Metr. Jonah was the cat’s meow while he was Metropolitan. There are certainly other explanations for why the MP would want to take a step back from the OCA in the wake of that incident — keep in mind that Metr. Theodosius was censured in the scandals, Herman was censured and forced to step down. Jonah made three (count ’em) “retired” primates of the OCA that were then walking around, plus another brand new non-retired one. Maybe it’s just me, but having four living primates (that has to be some kind of modern record) itself is enough to make for strained relations with the Patriarchate that granted its Tomos.
Edward is mostly right. When George wrote the following:
” It has been established that the Synod did not want to elect Jonah as Metropolitan back in October of 2008 but the natives were definitely restless and they were scared witless (as they should have been given their gross mismanagement).
We also know that the conspiracy against Jonah began within a few weeks of his election. I am talking about actual sabotage: the stories are legion.”
the key words are “It has been established…” and “We also know…” The first is not true: it has NOT been established anywhere, and the second is not true—it’s wishful thinking.
It’s absolutely true, however, as George states, that “the stories are LEGION!”
It is true that the Bishops may have betrayed the oaths they took at their consecration, =; namely not to act out of fear of the FAITHFUL!
I’m not sure how the Metropolitan’s “closeness?” to Moscow “INFURIATED” anybody. Perhaps “mildly annoyed” would have been more nearly accurate?
Only mostly right, Vladyka? I’m disappointed!
In any event, I’m glad we could lay to rest any question of whether any putative “closeness to Moscow” was the cause of Metr. Jonah’s demise in the OCA — it was not, not even remotely.
Peter, my respect for your biblical erudition and good intentions on this website is beginning to wane. Before that respect vanishes, I suggest, as a cyber-friend, that you desist from your relentless anti-Russian crusade, particularly the uncharitable and manifestly false rants against Patriarch Kirill and the entire Russian Orthodox Church. You are beginning to sound as shrill and disrespectful as George Weigel, my former colleague at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the focus of the open letter published originally on AOI under the title, “Patriarch Kirill and Russian Orthodoxy Deserve Respect Not Insults: An Open Letter to George Weigel”:
http://www.aoiusa.org/patriarch-kirill-and-russian-orthodoxy-deserve-respect-not-insults-an-open-letter-to-george-weigel/
Although my ministry as a Russian Orthodox priest may raise doubts in your mind as to whether I can serve as an “objective” observer, I hope you will seriously consider my seasoned judgment that you are rendering your own cause a grave disservice.
We Orthodox sons of Constantinople and Moscow alike (and Antioch and all the other autocephalous Churches and jurisdictions in North America) face, at once, a deadly, determined, diabolical from doctrinal and moral threat from within–the radical “progressives” so enamored of ecumenical, modernist theological, ethical, political, social, and pseudo-scientific trends and apparently embarrassed by our strong, coherent, universal, revealed Tradition–and a deadly, determined, diabolical, and extremely violent external threat from radical Islamo-fascists who, presumably, have on their target lists every one of the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates and the more recent national Churches.
As American founding father Benjamin Franklin opined famously during the debate over the draft Declaration of Independence in the Second Continental Congress in 1776, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
I most humbly agree with you father, and due to my respect for you i do or attempt to do as you say. My intention was never to be anti-ROC, but to raise a healthy dose of skepticism and self examination.
If I have done otherwise I apologize. So yes father I shall do so. Thank you.
Peter
Our Orthodox Faith and Church are not so fragile as the retired chaplain and jurisdiction-hopper may imagine! I’m sure Weigel is not the Oracle at Delphi, but we would need someone of his stature to confute anything he’s espoused. Too bad Weigel’s not on this blog so he could read of his being a “colleague!”
“We Orthodox sons (what? no daughters?) of Constantinople and…” opens a big paragraph of more hot air and cliche. More nouns and verbs, please, fewer impassioned and trite modifiers.
I miss Father George here. He had an unerring eye for blather.
As for the eternally quoted Ben Franklin, I feel the Iranian poet, Saa’di, is more apt: “the best thing for an ignorant person is silence and if he knew that, he wouldn’t be ignorant!”
I agree. You should heed that advice.
Peter
one of your best posts
Well, Peter I at least try, believe it or not. Failing that, I try not to succumb to outrageous credentialism and sophomoric attempts at “fine writing.”
You should try harder.
But no one could equal this outrage “my respect for your biblical erudition”…..no matter how hard one might try!
All I need point out is that you have yet to produce a single quotation from a ROC authority (a priest of an obscure English parish of the ROCOR doesn’t count, especially when he wasn’t under the MP’s jurisdiction when he wrote it) about 3rd Rome, or about seeking the title of EP for the MP, or about claims of universal jurisdiction akin to what the EP claims, etc.
It is good that you are stopping. It is tedious to keep asking you for proof for what you claim only to be ignored. Thanks for giving me the last word. Try to avoid using the word bullshit when talking about the Russian Church in the future and it is more likely that I will just ignore the foolishness.
That obscure priest was present at the 2007 act of reunification AND given the Patriarchal Cross in 2015 WITH NO CENSURE AND NO RENUNCIATION BY MOSCOW.
I al so gave you Patriarch Tikhon’s words that have never been repudiated or denounced that square perfectly with Fr. Phillips words and ideas. You belittle Fr. Phillips NOT THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE THAT HONORED HIM WITH THE PATRIARCHATE CROSS!!!
I gave you the articles about the so-called Russian ideal which goes hand in hand with the Third Rome bs, and you complete ignore it. That’s your choice!
I presented no foolishness, but the words you asked for and you refuse to admit your error. Again that is your choice. I have also given you the Actions of the MP and Russia, that speak louder than words, and still you do not believe. Again your choice.
So like I said if YOU want to believe Moscow’s Third Rome bs go ahead. I will not. You cow tow, not me. You still have time Edward just open your eyes and please try very hard not to buy the bs of Moscow, the EP, or anyone as the princes of this world will fail you. Christ never will.
Peter
Maybe they didn’t feel like going through everything he wrote with a fine tooth comb because they weren’t obsessed with archaic references?
I mean, it really doesn’t matter to anyone but Phanariotes, does it?
Just because the Phanariotes are obsessed with this archaism does not mean that anyone else need be.
I believe it’s Moscow that is obsessed.
Peter
That obscure priest was present at the 2007 act of reunification
I know a bunch of people who were at the ceremony in Moscow. The main qualifications were that you were in the ROCOR, cared about reunification, and could afford to travel to Moscow. I highly doubt any of them were vetted by the Patriarch particularly closely. The MP has bigger fish to fry than to see what all of their priests
AND given the Patriarchal Cross in 2015 WITH NO CENSURE AND NO RENUNCIATION BY MOSCOW.
Seriously, you need to be joking. The Russians love their awards — clergy usually get one at least every 5 years as long as they don’t mess up, and as far as I’m concerned, given what clergy have to put up with, they deserve every jeweled cross and double-orarion or whatever that they get, just for faithfully showing up to serve week after week, year in, year out. I was recently at a hierarchal liturgy. There were probably no fewer than a dozen awards to clergy and laity. I doubt the bishop had scrutinized all of their blog postings prior to giving them out. They either deserved them on the merits of their service indicated by their award or they didn’t.
The anti-reunification forces in the ROCOR were strong but extremely vocal — brutally and embarrassingly so at times. Anyone who preserved through all of that to make reunification happen anyway deserves whatever jeweled cross or mitre or whatever he was given.
I al so gave you Patriarch Tikhon’s words that have never been repudiated or denounced that square perfectly with Fr. Phillips words and ideas.
You really don’t listen, do you? Re-read what you quoted of St. Tikhon. First of all, it only deals with North America, not the entire diaspora, let alone the entire world, unlike the EP’s claims. And it is from over 100 years ago, whereas the EP’s claims are from today.
In addition, what part of what St. Tikhon wrote should be repudiated or denounced? Had the revolution never happened, and St. Tikhon’s plan been implemented in America, we would be in a wonderful position, with a Russian Metropolitan as our first hierarch, a unified multi-ethnic hierarchy sitting in council on the same Synod of Bishops, and an eventual plan for autonomy and autocephaly for that multi-ethnic unified Church. But the revolution did happen, unity went out the window, and it will be a very long road to achieving it again. If you can quote any Russian modern-day hierarchs who claim that in the year 2015, all of the faithful and clergy in North America must submit to the authority of the MP, I’ll be most interested to read it. You’ve never produced a shred of evidence.
You belittle Fr. Phillips NOT THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE THAT HONORED HIM WITH THE PATRIARCHATE CROSS!!!
I do not belittle Fr. Phillips. Perish the thought! I very much respect the work he has done. He has labored for decades as a parish priest, pastors a multi-ethnic parish in an isolated situation, worked hard for reunification of the Russian Church (which you would agree was the right thing — you have stated so repeatedly), and has labored tirelessly to educate us in the West about our own heritage of great saints in the lands of our birth or ancestral extraction. I admire that, and have almost certainly read far more that he has written than you have.
Since you are a “Wiki-scholar” on Fr. Philips, let me give you a quotation from that same article about Fr. Anrew: “…he actively promotes unity between the two parts of the Russian Church in Western Europe. This is in the hope that one day they will form a united Metropolia, as part of a multi-Metropolia Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, as foreseen in the 2007 agreement between the two parts of the Russian Church.” A little bit different from how you have portrayed his vision.
What he wrote about Moscow as “Third Rome” (he actually wrote two different articles), were in great part cautionary and sober. They are worth reading with an open mind, and do not remotely say what you claim that they say. He did use the words “Third Rome” but nothing in those articles deserves censure on any account that I could see.
I gave you the articles about the so-called Russian ideal which goes hand in hand with the Third Rome bs, and you complete ignore it. That’s your choice!
You know, Peter, I’m simply not going to respond anymore to any statement in which you use the word bullshit when talking about the Russian Orthodox Church. It is out of line.
I presented no foolishness, but the words you asked for and you refuse to admit your error. Again that is your choice. I have also given you the Actions of the MP and Russia, that speak louder than words, and still you do not believe. Again your choice.
It is absolute foolishness to repeatedly claim that the MP is trying to take the title of EP, that the MP claims universal jurisdiction over the diaspora, and that the MP holds to some sort of triumphalist “Third Rome” ideology, especially when the only thing you can use to back it up are the private opinions of a parish priest.
So like I said if YOU want to believe Moscow’s Third Rome bs go ahead. I will not. You cow tow, not me. You still have time Edward just open your eyes and please try very hard not to buy the bs of Moscow, the EP, or anyone as the princes of this world will fail you. Christ never will.
You are gravely mistaken if you think I have any kind of rose-colored glasses about anything, let alone about anything in the Church — Russian or otherwise. Like anyone who has been involved in the Church for decades, I am well aware of problems in every jurisdiction and national church. I have seen saints and I have seen scoundrels — nothing shocks me. But your incessant attacks on the Russian Church are simply things that I’m not going to let pass without defending it from false witness.
I believe that Misha is right — all of this is projection. You are well aware of what the EP is about and you have enough spiritual sensibilities to know that the rot is deep at the Phanar. So you project all of this stuff onto the Russian Church, hoping to distract from the obvious. Your falsehoods need to be refuted — it is tedious but necessary, since some people actually do believe internet gossip. But ultimately what matters is what we do in our personal spiritual lives and what we accomplish in our parishes and dioceses. I will leave you with some thoughts from Fr. Andrew Phillips, whose writings I very much respect, even when I disagree with some of his opinions. He wrote this during the time that he was working towards reunion between the MP and the ROCOR:
The real battle is that age-old battle for the Church, the soul of Orthodoxy, for spiritual integrity and spiritual depth. It is the battle for spiritual and moral authority, the battle of Orthodox Tradition against worldly fashions, against every deviation from the Truth of Christ, against every ‘ism’. The real battle is the one which we in the parishes have been conducting the whole time, it is the battle for human souls.
It is the battle against that Old Dragon, Satan, who now wishes to capture human souls beneath the camouflage of the seductions of the ‘sophisticated’, ‘academic’ modernism of ‘fleshly wisdom’…. Fleshly wisdom has forgotten the words of the holy Apostle: To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be (Romans 8, 6-7); and again: For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world (2 Cor 1,12); and again: Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind (Colossians 2,18).
At the present time, the real battle is, as it has been for decades, against the old-fashioned vestiges of renovationism (perezhitki obnovlenchestva) within the Russian Church. However, it is not only the battle against secular modernism, but also that against secular nationalism in the life of the Church, wherever it may be, inside Russia or outside Russia.
I gave you what you wanted and you rationalized it away. You cannot accept the truth of Moscow’s Third Rome bs so I will leave you to your delusions. I however am at peace that I did my best to warn you. The rest is on you. I hope and pray that I am wrong. Like I said before embarrassment I can live with, but not Russian domination.
So I hope you are right Edward, but the ROC has this in their Church, has this notion in their Church and whether they call it Third Rome or the Russian Idea its the same bs. Please don’t buy it, but being that you have I hope you are right and I am wrong, because if not its going to hurt a lot of people.
As always its in God’s hands and I am at peace with that.
Peter
I have respect for Fr. Andrew and have quoted him at times in other contexts. I am cautious about his opinions on this subject not because he is off in substance but because sometimes he gets carried away in idealism. Nonetheless, he is a true asset to the ROC.
As to all of this “Third Rome” stuff:
If Moscow is not attempting to change the diptychs and is not claiming exclusive jurisdiction in the diaspora, which it is not, then the rest of this is really none of the Phanariotes’ business. No one besides the Greeks accepts the canon 28 claims so really the ROC is not doing anything in fact that the other patriarchates wouldn’t approve in principle. Let Constantinple expand their own local church. No one is stopping them. If they don’t like that arrangement, they can continue to pound sand and throw hissy fits but it won’t change the policy of the ROC.
Well time will time. Like you said Moscow has work to do.
Peter.
“Time will time”
There’s a profound statement. If by that you mean that the MP could in the future confirm all of your worst slanders and accusations against the Russian Church, that is of course true. Anything could happen.
It is also possible that the EP could unilaterally cut a deal with the Pope of Rome to establish full communion in exchange for being granted by Rome the status of being the Pope of the East, with infallibility in matters of faith and doctrine. But there is no evidence that he plans to do so.
In theory, an extremist Old Calendarist could accuse him of planning to do just that, and then, when challenged to provide proof, say, “time will tell.” But that doesn’t make it intellectually honest to make those accusations, with nothing but ones prejudices and suspicions and conspiracy theories to back them up.
And that is pretty what you are doing vis a vis the Russian Orthodox Church. When asked to provide proof of your slander, you spin and obfuscate because you were caught with your intellectual pants down. And that is why you are reduced now to little one liner snarks.
By contrast, I have only objected to what the EP’s officially stated positions are (as has the rest of the Orthodox world), and objected to false accusations and slander directed at the Russian Orthodox Church, asking for proof.
If what you claim were true, you would see every other autocephalous Church chiming in and agreeing with you. Instead, everyone but the EP is quite publicly standing with Moscow. That should tell you something.
Oh btwI cannot speak to Bishop Benjamin, but given Fr. Arida and now Pd. Wheeler have said about SSM and Homosexuality you may want to rethink that position.
Peter
I have no idea what you just said. That post was gibberish.
I am not surprised.
Peter
Well that was helpful… not. I will ask plainly, what position am I supposed to rethink? My only position is that if you are going to make accusations about someone, you should supply some proof. I don’t see what Arida or Wheeler have to do with what I said about the Archbishop.
Well if you read carefully Edward I said I DON’T KNOW about bishop Benjamin about his support of ssm in the OCA, but I do know what Fr. Arida and Pd. Wheeler have said about ssm.
Good bye Edward. Take care of yourself.
Peter
You told me to rethink my position. I asked you to tell me what position I was supposed to rethink. You dodged the question. I did read carefully and your telling me to rethink my position was clearly, on careful reading a non sequitur, and hence gibberish. Try telling me what you meant, in plain English. I did not claim to have any knowledge one way or another — I just believe that when a hierarch is casually slandered, there ought to be proof. Arida and Wheeler have supplied evidence that they appear to want to change to teaching and practice of the Church, so I have never challenged anyone to back up their assertions about those two clerics. Bringing them into the conversation is irrelevant.
Edward,
In light of Fr. Webster’s comments, and my respect for him, and acceptance of his correction, I humbly as for your forgiveness to the hurt I have caused you. Please accept my apology, and let’s leave our disagreement.
Love among the brethren is better than any debate. Like I said before I will not give up on you or any of our Orthodox people. I still have my doubts of Russia, et. al., but will not push it to the point of division.
With that I truly apologize.
Peter
Peter, your apology is wholeheartedly accepted. I likewise ask forgiveness for ways in which I have offended you. Just as you have doubts about Russia, et al, I have doubts about the Phanar. But in spite of those long-standing concerns, it has never once kept m from having good relations with GOA clergy and parishioners over the years. As I have said, I was a very happy and involved GOA parishioner myself for some years, and built up many bonds of love through all of that. There is no reason for division between Orthodox Christians.
Thank you Edward. Now let’s pray for the situation in Syria that it doesn’t spiral out of control with Turkey shooting down a Russian jet and ISIS killing the Russian pilot that ejected and landed to the ground. The situation is changing as we speak. I hope calm will prevail, and not the start of a regional war or WWIII.
For Turkey, a NATO member, to shoot down a Russian plane is simply terrible. I don’t know all the facts, but no matter what this is a terrible sign. May God have mercy on us all.
Further even though we have such dreadful and momentous events going on I do wish you, your family and everyone here a Happy Thanksgiving.
Peter
George, that is an interesting perspective. I am not up on modern day prophecies or eschatology, and will leave both to those more knowledgeable. I would again point out that the Russian Church itself, after the revolution, did both things: they prayed for Russia to be freed and for a Christian ruler to return — and they specifically reminded the faithful that there was a thriving Church before Constantine, and that the Church did not require state support or tolerance to survive.
In spite of accusations to the contrary, both you and I know that the ROC is not counting on anything lasting in terms of state support or even tolerance.
I’m a practical guy. I want the Russian Church to make hay while the sun shines, but have grave doubts about whether it will last. If there is a rebirth of Christian civilization in Russia, it will be a welcome miracle. And in this awful 21st century, it would be a miracle indeed.
Actually the reverse is what I see happening.
Here we have Putin as a strong secular leader with the trappings of religious faith solving or attempting to solve the major problems of the world with a religious figure, Patriarch krill, advising him and giving him spiritual counsel. The people of the world looking to him as the “Man of the hour” that can save the world from disaster.
That is the formula for the Antichrist and the False Prophet. Now Putin is NOT the Antichrist and Patriarch Krill is NOT the False Prophet, but look at how fast we wanted a strong world leader that can solve our problems, who is cloaked with morality and righteousness, who has a religious leader guiding and counseling him and blessing his endeavors. That we so quickly fall behind and support.
That’s how the REAL Antichrist will come and how the REAL False Prophet will arise. This is just a foreshadowing of what will come, and how even the very elect will be deceived. Let us tread lightly and be sober on this matter in the years to come so we are not deceived.
Peter
We pray for secular political leaders to guide their peoples with God’s help. If someone looks like he might, why in the world is that reason to pause and consider the danger of the Antichrist?
I do see Western conservatives putting too much hope in Putin, but I’m not sure how many non-Russians actually expect Putin to solve all our worldly problems. Most of us just hope he foils certain geopolitical designs on the Middle East and reduces the power of our own oligarchy in global economics. These are matters we cannot influence as individuals, so I find it reasonable.
Edward and George,
Of course, I haven’t been as critical of the Phanar as I could. But all I’m really interested in doing is defending the ROC against defamation, at least on this point.
And, lest anyone accuse me of messianic zeal, there is a lot that could go wrong with Russian revitalization. I mean, you recall that in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s everyone thought that Japan’s stock was rising with no limit. Didn’t work out that way.
In case somehow it has missed anyone’s attention, I do not see the rise of Russia as a religious phenomenon primarily. It is a political one. I just think it is natural for the Russian church to revitalize internally and expand externally. It is doing so at no ones expense, least of all the Phanar’s. One would think Orthodox believers would be delighted at the spread of the Gospel, even if it is not being done solely by ethnic Greeks. Perhaps that is too much to ask though.
Certainly it is providential. But as to some glorious “Third Rome”, well, I’m not much of a tourist. I go on vacation, my sister wants to show me the Mayan pyramids (or whatever they call them).. “Fine, their great. Where’s the beach?”
Though they have given no indication that they might do so, if the synod of the ROC got up tomorrow and voted to add a title mentioning “Third Rome” to the title of the Muscovite Patriarch:
Патриарх Московский, Третьего Рима, и всея Руси.
. . ., or some such formulation, I would probably take a wait and see attitude. [Note: I wrote that out just to see if I could send Peter into full apoplectic mode]. Initially, I would perceive it as a mistake. However, if it were to signify that both old Rome is dead in spiritual terms and “New Rome” is dead in imperial terms, then it would be merely crystalizing reality into a title. But I would strongly advise against that in general, and probably would have trouble acknowledging it myself unless Moscow secured the agreement of a majority of the other patriarchates at a minimum. Then, the title would be at least as legitimate as “Ecumenical Patriarch”. But that’s the point, isn’t it. Would Moscow embracing the title actually change anything objectively?
As to the eschaton, I don’t try to figure it out. It will get here soon enough. I may live to see it. If not and Jesus tarries another 500 years perhaps Orthodox then will welcome the rise of a new Orthodox world power as the “New Moscow”, who knows? Regardless, if it’s useful in spreading the gospel and combatting the spread of Western secular humanist culture, its ok fine in my book.
If Patriarch Bartholomew wanted to become beloved by all Orthodox overnight (but probably rejected by “progressives”), he would forget about global warming and canon 28, cheer the spread of the Gospel by any local church (including his own) any place in the diaspora, reform his own local church in terms of orthopraxis, arrange for an Athonite monk to become his successor; reconcile with the Old Calendar Greeks, apologizing for NC Greek atrocities in the past; and break off doctrinal conversations with Rome until they explicitly renounce Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc., though cooperation on moral matters where we agree might continue. Of course, with the first Episcopalian pope, even the moral overlap with Rome may be waning . .
And if frogs had wings . . .
Peter, is Patriarch Bartholomew against abortion? If your answer is yes, please provide some evidence, such as a quotation.
Also, what “Episcopalian” doctrines has Pope Francis professed?
Yup I agree. Thank you.
Peter
I see on Facebook a photo of Patriarch Bartholomew and a gaggle of “Archons” on the isle of Halki posing before a newly unveiled big bronze bust of Patriarch Batholomew. Too bad we don’t have pictures of any Saints posing in front of THEIR icons!
You must not have gotten the invite for saints to be present. Too bad.
Peter
All canons affirming the status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as “first among equals” or even “ecumenical” are subject to reality checks and revision. Primacy in the Orthodox world has shifted to Moscow, the capitol of the world’s Orthodox superpower. This has occured just like primacy shifted in the past from Alexandria to Constantinople in the East and then from Rome to Constantinople. Moscow alone represents 70%+ of the Orthodox world, the oikumene, and that by itself is enough to establish a quorom for its authority and ecumenical patriarchal leadership. Let’s accept reality.
There is no more a city known as Constantinople and the Holy Canons do not recognize an Istanbul. Moreover, the statements of faith promulgated by Istanbul are premised upon two lungs ecclesiology, which is an heretical confession of faith promulgating branch theory.
I myself will not be under the omophorion of Istanbul in any guise and urge all pious and sober Orthodox Christians on this continent to likewise reject its neopapal fantasies.
Most Orthodox in the world would at very least respect my position.
Thus, whether one likes it or not, Moscow is in reality and morally the Orthodox Third Rome and Istanbul is a falling see.
For the record, the sole canonical local church on North American soil is the OCA, not ROCOR, which is a temporary autonomous diocese of the Mother Church, and certainly not a renovationist EP/GOA. As such, the only legitimate functions of SCOBAs and Episcopal Assemblies are to aid in the transition to unity with the administration and mission of the canonical local church, the OCA. The only foreign organism which has the slightest canonical authority on this continent is the Mother Church in Moscow and that works itself out in the interpretation and execution of the Tomos of Autocephaly.
Again, I am a Russian party remnant in the OCA, old Metropolia in temperament, with shared loyalties to the Mother Church, trying hard to embrace ROCOR as a fraternal organism but not always getting there. I am Russian Orthodox in North America, OCA, not ROCOR.
Most Orthodox in the world would at very least respect my position.
Well if this blog is a small representation of “Most Orthodox” I believe the answer to your assertion is NO!
Peter
Then there are 100 million+ Russian Orthodox Christians with whom I share a common worldview numbering 70%+ of the Orthodox world. Hope you get that memo eventually. And 66% of respondents “on this small blog” who want the Istanbul backed Episcopal Assembly in the US scrapped. Even the AOA is stepping on the brakes regarding your AHEPA renovationist ambitions.
So reality really doesn’t do justice to the absurd fantasies of ep/GOA renovationist Orthodoxism. Alas, the day is coming when these Eastern Rite Protestants will be forced to either go elsewhere or take those ridiculous and tacky ballpark organs out of their churches and just be Orthodox and stop creating a hostile environment for Orthodox mission. What a revolutionary but thankfully inevitable thought.
People are tired of the AHEPA renovationist GOA counterfeit which is nothing more than a bathotic McOrthodoxy.
I found this article very interesting
Patriarch Krill very political
Well, perhaps it may work to the benefit of the omogenia on one issue:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/88209.htm
Moscow wants Turkey to return Aya Sofia to the OC.
What IS all this Rome” stuff? “NEW” Rome? “3rd” Rome? Were Constantinopolitan clergy so insecure that they had to claim to be some other entity? And why would Moscow (NOT Russia) want to be a 3rd ANYTHING?
Why do questions about being this or that “ROME” continue to agitate, e.g., modern Grecian-Americans?
What’s so good about being any kind of ROME? Didn’t Christians used to associate Rome with that “whore Babylon?”
A.D. 2015 and grown men are agitated by who “gets to be” ROME?
Rome is a museum in the modern world, and capital of a well-known but minor European power.
How can the Patriarchy in Istanbul (a Greek name) STAND to be called “New Rome?” Does it imagine that non-Christians will be irresistibly drawn to a place with such an improbable and irrelevant moniker? I think the intelligent and cultivated upper hierarchy of today’s Russian Church, while fully aware of their Church’s institutional pre-eminence do not, like some third world potentates, rely on an obsolescent slogan, like “Moscow (NOT RUSSIA), the 3rd Rome”, dreamed up by a medieval Elder? Let the Grecian Patriarchs of once multi-ethnic Constantinople remind St Peter that they are FIRST IN HONOR and see where it gets them!
If one is honest, one might recognize a terminal case of “Envy of the Papacy!” It is at its most poignant when this or that high official claims that the EPs are “Successors of Andrew the First Called AS the Popes are Successors of Peter! Kind of sad…..
Happy Thanksgiving my good bishop.
Peter
A belated “likewise!
A belated thank you. Your growing on me my good bishop. Have a nice day.
Peter
Well it seems this is another step in the consolidation of power here in America for the GOAA. Given my previous posts I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, but could be if there is no real plan for Jurisdictional Unity AND its not temporary. In any event here it is:
Archbishop Demetrios of America Receives the High Title of “Geron”
Moscow can be rightfully called Third Rome because the Tsar married into the Byzantine royal family of the Comneni just after the fall of Constantinople. The Tsars and Russia were the continuation of the Byzantine Empire’s royal bloodline after Constantinople fell.
True that.
Well, er, um, uj….St Vladimir converted in order to persuade the Byzantine emperor tl let him marry that Byzantine princess residing in Greek Crimea….myths about Russian tourists notwithstanding. And any traces of a “(royal bloodline” (tee-hee) were long gone in modern times. The last Russia/Byzantine “blood” in the house of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov vanished with Anna Leopoldovna!
Actually, he seemed to have wanted to convert anyway and another competing account, besides that in the Chronicle, has him being baptized in Kiev well before the marriage. Yet others say it was the result of a request for support from the Greek emperor against rebellious generals. No one knows but he who believes the latest scholarly theories regarding events of religious significance really has no faith. Modern scholarship is not even as substantial as sand, let alone rock.
I’m amazed at how many seem to cast doubt on the “Korsun legend” without being able to refute any piece of it. Regardless, Russians have been schooled on the version in the Chronicle and for them it is part of the narrative of the Baptism of Rus’, whether atheistic liberals like it or not.
Btw: RE is referring to the marriage of Ivan III to Sophia Palaeologos, not St. Vladimir [tee-hee].
But you don’t support the Third Rome concept do you Misha? You did spend an awful long time refuting me on this that this was no longer in the ROC. Why not refute and correct RE and MW?
Peter
Peter,
What I was trying to impress upon you is that “Third Rome” does not figure in the policy of the ROC. There may have been some informal infatuation with the idea centuries ago but it really is an anachronism and never has been the official policy of Moscow.
On this thread, I just wished to point out a couple of things which I will summarize:
First, “dynastic succession” and “[ethnic] purity of bloodlines” are two different concepts. There were/are regulations utilized by the Russian royal house to decide the order of succession. They have mostly to due with paternity and class and little to do with ethnicity. Much of the royalty in Europe is related inasmuch as it was the custom that royals would only marry royals or those of the nobility. Russian ethnicity, when it comes to racial composition, is a mixture predominantly of East Slav, Germanic/Norse, Finnish and Mongol. Of course, there is much else included as well.
As to the connection of the Russian royal line with the Byzantine, I was simply explaining what the theories are about how this or that happened. The only relevance as far as I’m concerned has to do with the remarks of Pres. Putin regarding Cherson in the Crimea. Traditionally, this has been viewed as a sacred site, the place where Prince Vladimir was baptized. For Russians, it is a part of national consciousness. For example, in the Law of God, the catechism produced by Fr. Serafim Slobodskoy, which is very popular in RO circles, there is an section on the Baptism of Rus’.
And then one can become acquainted with +Bishop TIKHON (Shevkunov) and Elder Ilya (Nozdrin)…
I think President V Putin really likes the idea of Moscow being the Third Rome–any cleric wanting to “get ahead” in Russia should make the idea a prominent part of his portfolio!
And then, Your Grace, you recognize that the nation which represents 70% of the Orthodox world and curries the support of another 10% – 20%, being the world’s Orthodox superpower exists…
Russia is the Third Rome. It is astonishing that an Orthodox Bishop speaks out against the reemergence of an Orthodox superpower and cultural center rallying all Orthodox peoples to unity and resistance in the face of a post Christian, gay crusading McCulture and apostasy.
BTW Peter,
As to your unfolding discussion with Michael Warren, I would prefer to stay out of it if at all possible. I’m wary of getting into it with Russophiles in the OCA, even if we may not be on the same page all the time.
I’m not discusing anything this is between you and MW. I’m out of it as well. Third Rome is your baby, not mine.
Peter
Thank you very much. I too am wary of alliances with ROCOR Whites and Vlasovites.
Thank you for recognizing I am a Russophile and appreciating my loyalty to the canonical American local church, the OCA. You are too kind.
Well I’m staying out of it this time. You discuss Third Rome among youselvee because to some it does not look like a dead concept. I’m out. Bye.
Peter
No, it is a definite part of the future of world Orthodoxy and the majority of local churches want it to be so.
Moscow as the Third Rome, whether pagan or Christian,, is a concept deader than a door-nail, except to wannabe Russians or Russo-maniacs and -phobes.! As for American Orthodoxy, it’s somewhat like Camp Swampy of old, waiting for some headquarters to call up! But it’s still a money farm for some overseas entities.
And then, Your Grace, you recognize that the nation which represents 70% of the Orthodox world and curries the support of another 10% – 20%, being the world’s Orthodox superpower exists…
If its size and “superpower” that are determinative, then Moscow could be termed, rather,The Second Ulan Bator, or Second Baghdad, or Second Mongol Horde, etc, as for the Russian Federation (that’s the name of the country), I think Mr Putin DREAMS of becoming the “New America!”.
This is the first we have heard of Putin’s desire for a Russia like your degenerate America. I think you are thinking of clowns like Yeltsin or banderofascist Potroshenko. They have McDonald’s in Moscow and a handful of gay bars catering mainly to foreign deviants and neither Putin nor Moscow nor the Russian Federation is all that impressed with them, much the less striving to turn the Russian Federation into that immoral bedlam. Russia has a thousand year old great Orthodox culture and civilization and that is Putin’s idee fixe. No wants Wal-Mart and Hollywood degeneracy for the masses. No one wants a failing and bankrupt red, white and blue uber alles empire. No one wants the terminal illness known as America.
Better a Mongolia of strong and brave people than a California of fruits, nuts and Caitlyn Jenners.
And our Third Rome stands with 70% of the Orthodox world within Russia’s borders and another 10-20% endorsing Muscovite ascendency without where your crass russophobia, Your Grace, is only left to an insigficant fringe.
I Think M Warren is channeling “Barbara” again!
Are you really retired OCA +Bishop TIKHON or has a Salon reading MoveOn activist with a GED and a Ukrainian banderofascist manifesto hijacked his account?
Actually, the Third Rome reality is predicated on fidelity to Orthodoxy and continuance of Orthodox civilization. Roman autocracy was predicated, BTW, on a successful revolution which toppled the Tarquin monarchy. Both the republic and the Caesars were autocrats of the people of Rome, representing their will and civilization. That’s why all the standards and official documents well into the Byzantine era bear the initials SPQR, or “The Senate and the People of Rome.”
The basis for the Third Rome ideology lies in fidelity to Orthodoxy and carrying out the mission of Orthodox civilization. It was confirmed not by royal marriages but by the Patriarch of Constantinople briefly transfering the See and authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to Moscow and then being a chief catalyst in the founding of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589, where the Patriarch was given the title of the pope of Old Rome, “His Holiness.”
You couldn’t make this stuff of Warren’s up, even if you tried!
All it takes is education and something more than Russophobia to get there…
I especially got a kick out of the idea that a REPUBLIC could be “autocrats!”
Your Grace, the Roman Republic seized power from the Tarquins and became the supreme ruling body of Rome.
It is highly inappropriate for a retired Orthodox Bishop to engage in cyber-stalking.
Calling the Roman Republic “autocrats” is like accusing someone like me of “cyber-stalking.” It’s not a sign of good mental hygiene. Julius Caesar became an autocrat. HE turned the Republic into an autocracy, and remained THE autocrat, as did his individual successors. But the Republic was made up of government, merchants, soldiers, and so on. I don’t mind it if Mr Warren’s suffering from OCD relative to what I write here, but I wouldn’t accuse him of stalking. What an idea!
So writing crass Russophobic nonsense and historically inacurrate silliness is part of your monastic ustav, Your Grace? Or is trolling Orthodox Christians and intentionally harassing them now part of your retired (sic!) episcopacy. It is called cyber stalking.
Since the Roman Republic was the supreme body of governance in the empire it became its sovereign and autocrat.
Julius Caesar was murdered on the Ides of March after he had successfully vanquished his two partners in the triumvirate, which the Republic empowered. It even kept renewing his powers as consul. So if he were an autocrat with those powers delegated to him by the Senate and the People of Rome, that would mean his and all subsequent autocratic Roman structures descend from the Senate and the People of Rome. Or didn’t you notice the SPQR on all the standards of the Roman autocrats, Your Grace. And i happened to mention that in the initial comment.
Locke understands the collective sovereignty of the citizenry as absolute or autocratic. And although a later writer, the example of SPQR in effect creating the empire by delegating authority to autocratic Caesars means it has autocratic power to delegate.
Now enough of the rabbit holes. Please do stop cyber-stalking me, Your Grace. You are acting like one of the people Madam Sakoda showcases and it is unseemly.
It would be impossible for me to “stalk” anyone who is as repulsive to me as Mr Warren (for whom I, nevertheless, pray)!
I have NEVER expressed a Russophobic statement or opinion here or anywhere, although I have a deep mistrust of Vova Putin and loathe the remembrance of Soviet Communism..That’s not Russophobia, but its opposite!
I understand that Mr Warren may not be of 100 per cent Russian background, which may be responsible for the notes of desperation and insecurity which are heard in his logorrheatic defenses against an imaginary Russophobia or Ukrainophilia. He wants to be Russian. That’s harmless enough. But his postings here harm himself–it’s something like masochism, I fear. God be with him!