Yes, yes, I know, I said we’d go dark until after Easter but, well, this is explosive. And for once explosive in a good way. Anyway, the usual caveat “as events warrant,” applies here in a big way.
We could have titled this “see how good it is when brothers dwell together in love” and it’d be just as joyous. According to Byzantine, Texas, the four primates who recently met in Cyprus healed the six-year-old schism between Antioch and Jerusalem over the erection of a Jerusalemite parish in Qatar (which is traditionally considered to be the province of Antioch).
The fact that these four ancient Sees were able to get together and resolve this issue without the offices of Constantinople underscores the needlessness of Phanariote papalism. I imagine it also serves as a shot across the bow to any further such adventures and may be the death-knell for the schismatic, uncanonical sect in Ukraine.
Many thanks to Greatly Saddened who posted this on Monomakhos (credit to Byzantine, Texas for breaking the story).
http://byztex.blogspot.com/2019/04/has-jerusalem-seen-reason.html?m=1
Great! Now they can get on with the business of deposing the schismatic Bartholomew.
Marvellous news in Holy Week. A greek lady in Uk married to husband out of that millieu could have told u what they like.
Bad idea. Russia became Arabated enough so the Scoptozy Russians circumcised their women as a result of Uspensky de-Hellenizing the Antiochians. And the crypto-muslim monphysites arabeted the Greeks who fled the 1893 Olympic bankruptcy by going to Turkey, and when the nigrasiates returned, they brought communism, antisemitism and crypto-muslim traditions to the Greek mainland.
Lots of weird stuff in the Comney posts. He might just be a very troubled individual.
There was no Olympics in 1893–or in 1983, as he posted elsewhere.
I will post this here rather than in your thread. I have a great respect for Greeks and their history and your story breaks my heart. What I cannot abide is the attitude that Christ is Risen for the GREEKS and no one else. Especially when there are families in my parish who have been Christian since before the conversion of Saul.
No doubt I am a mongrel, but I have been grafted on and right now the type of attitude Costa shows is wounding the Church, the Body of Christ
Brother,
I was being facetious.
Constantinos, Michael makes a valid point. And in these tense times, what one of us might intend to say in a facetious way can be taken very seriously by someone else.
Costa, I accept you are being facetious, but there are those who seriously hold that attitude and it stinks
I think myself alert to satire, but nonetheless I took the comment seriously, too.
It has been a sort of revelation to me how this attitude actually reflects the feeling of many US Orthodox Greeks, spoken or unspoken. Note the pronouncements of the EP in recent times which essentially assert the same things.
It’s definitely a case of protesting too much.
Tim, several things at work here: First Costa is not noted for humor in his posts; Second: the nature the medium and the mechanics of humor conflict; Third: the thread in which Costa placed his post made any attempt at humor out of place and entirely unsuspected; Fourth, it was too close to reality to be humorous even if everything else were not against it.
As some one who was immersed in theater for many years as a young man with a mother and an aunt who performed professionally in New York as a dancer in Martha Graham’s company, I have studied humor quite a bit both theoretically and experientially. Humor is multi-dimensional relying on context, timing, body language, voice inflection and shared experience to communicate. Humor is frequently a way of dealing with real pain. It is fascinating. All humor, especially sarcasm, does not communicate well in what is an essentially two dimensional medium such as a blog or e-mail.
Notwithstanding your “Windex” comment, which made me laugh out loud.
Ah yes, but there is a great deal of context, visual and auditory memory surrounding that comment for anyone who has seen the movie. So that is an allusion, not a straight attempt at satire or sarcasm.
Mr. Bauman,
As we all know, there is a great deal of bloviating and histrionics on this forum. Can you tell how many angels can dance on a pin?(just kidding)
No, the question I really want to ask you(knowing you are a deeply committed, devout Orthodox Christian), are you involved in your local community in any way. In other words, do you give back to your community? Are you a civic leader? Are you well known in your community?Are you a member of town meeting committee, the planning board, the board of selectmen, finance committee, etc? Or are you too heavenly minded to do any earthly good? The reason I ask this is because I believe every Orthodox Christian should be involved in his local community, schedule permitting of course. I think it is unconscionable for any Orthodox Christian giving all his time to his Orthodox Church, especially when said church is not a part of your local community. As you know, charity begins at home which is your local community. Being a community volunteer is a very noble, enriching activity. Be a leader, and get involved closest to home. Develop a good reputation.
Greece went bankrupt in 1983 preparing for the 1986 Olympics, with massive building by Germans of government buildings, ports, rails and stadia. Germans were so indignant Greeks default, they felt it justified carting off Greek gold fifty years later. Elytis and Seferis families emigrated to Turkey because of national bankruptcy as many Greeks TODAY move to Turkey. These wastrels became monophysated and came back as old calendar, communist anti-semite Decembrists of 1944 and 2008. That is why the only way Greece can redeem itself to the Holy Planet of America is by sending all the antarteggoonia back to Turkey
It’s a Pity the excellent standard of this blog is stained by this sort of rubbish .
Greece started life with a million pound debt to uk as a very poor country with a third of today’s land mass, with no natural resources really.
The Tricoupis governments 1880s went broke as it spent money modernizing country, Corinth canal etc.
Ottoman Turkey always had a vigorous greek population, many of whom were merchants and there was always close connections between Greeks of Asia minor and those of Greece.
Especially of islanders as culturally same.
The Olympic Game were in 1896.
Between 1912-1922 Greece was continually at war. As for going broke, if USA could not print dollars and force petro -currency on world,it would be bankrupt now.
It’s the best news in Orthodoxy in years! And it proves our conciliar system of leadership works just fine. Let’s hope the borderline heretical distortions of ecclesiology coming out of Fener get shut down toute suite!
I find this healing gratifying on so many levels.
First, the schism is healed. Glory to Jesus Christ!
Second, it was healed by the way of GRACE and brotherly love, both that of the disputing parties and that of those who brought them together.
Third, it was accomplished “apart from the law,” which is to say apart from the CP’s refusal to do his canonical duty of exercising his ‘right’ to hear and judge Antioch’s appeal.
Forth, it demonstrates that GRACE and the way of love in Jesus Christ is infinitely greater and more powerful than any law of any kind.
Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift!
It should be obvious to anyone, this is exactly what Patriarch Bartholomew wanted. He wanted Jerusalem and Antioch to resolve their dispute between themselves. This is an example of the EP not being a “papalist power” and not being interested in “abusing authority”. Of course it’s also true the EP wanted to remain neutral and not take sides in the matter before the Crete Council. So for this reason, Jerusalem and Antioch met in Cyprus in February 2016, before the Council happened, in an attempt to resolve their dispute:
http://orthochristian.com/91009.html
Unfortunately that meeting wasn’t successful. So it was revisited again this month in Cyprus, and communion was finally restored.
The main message from the Cyprus meeting is that Eucharistic communion should not be used as an instrument of political pressure, and that’s a reproach specifically aimed at Moscow. Moscow should take notice. Lest we forget, Patriarch Bartholomew admonished the OCU Metropolitan Epiphany to respect the faithful in Ukraine who wished to remain with the Moscow Patriarchate. Patriarch Bartholomew has expressed his point of view that neither are to be considered as “schismatic”:
“There are no more schismatics in Ukraine, because the Church has restored them. And we consider it a great blessing of the grace of the Holy Spirit that so many millions of people have entered into canonical regularity again.”
https://www.ecupatria.org/2019/03/22/interview-of-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-by-z-rakocevic-for-the-serbian-newspaper-politika/
It isn’t necessary for Moscow to recognize Ukrainian autocephaly. Moscow can restore communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate by simply recognizing Metropolitan Epiphany as a bishop under the canonical jurisdiction of the EP. It’s not too late yet. Moscow still gets to keep all their churches and all the faithful who wish to remain with them. The Ukrainian parliament has now signaled that any illegal “church seizures” will be properly restored, and the UOC-MP will be protected. There is no loss to Moscow. Now is the time to restore communion, and that’s the main message from Cyprus.
That’s an extremely roseate view of the entire situation. It’s the positive inverse of Dean Wormer’s administrative style if you ask me.
Kali Anastasi, Joseph.
Brian, thank you, Christ Is Risen!
Joseph I don’t know how much of the Fener kool-aid you have been drinking but it has left your brain addled. Let’s be clear. Black Bart stuffed his miserable hands full of bribes to invade the ecclesiastical territory of another Church and the tomos he granted has created a Frankenstein pseudo Church that is devoid of grace. You can see that by its fruits. It’s head is praising a Nazi collaborator up and down and giving moral support to the neo-Nazis militias and other groups. The militias will not relinquish power easily and I fear much blood will be spilled before this is over. Black Bart will have much to answer for when he stands before the Just Judge. It is time to depose him before he can wreck any more mischief in the Orthodox world.
On a purely secular/political scale, this whole Ukrainian thing confuses me. Let me go through the steps:
1. Hitler was evil.
2. Those who collaborated with him are likewise evil. (See: Nuremberg trials.)
3. Those who glorify him are evil (and or deluded, Jew-haters, etc.)
4. The present Ukrainian government was put in place by neo-nazis.
5. Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist, was decidedly pro-Hitler and collaborated with his regime.
6. The US government completely supports the Maidan coup which put neo-nazis in power and has rehabilitated Bandera.
Question #1: Am I missing something here? Has Hitler been rehabilitated in the US? If not, why then are we building Holocaust museums all over America? (Did we perpetrate the Holocaust?)
Question #2: Why didn’t our military participate in the 70th anniversary of VE Day in Moscow?
I’m confused.
George;
Agreed, Hitler was evil. But Stalin collaborated with Hitler, thus starting WWII. That is why I can’t stand some many modern Russians glorifying Stalin.And I’ve heard from so many Russian; not Neo-Communists, but devout people who go to church, take Communion, and even venerate the Royal Martyrs of Russia.
You should know yourself that the Left defends Stalin’s deal with Hitler. When Franco, a man of the Right, came to power with Hitler’s help, that seems upsetting. Yet Franco stayed neutral during the war; he used Hitler and got away with it. Stalin used Hitler and got burnt; remember Stalin never declared war on Hitler’ until Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
As a student of history, you should know that not every country allied with Hitler was necessarily on board with everything Hitler stood for. Finland aligned herself with Hitler to get back her territory stolen by the Soviets. Slovakia aligned with Hitler, because Hitler had occupied Bohemia and Moravia. Hitler reputedly told Fr. Tiso, the Slovak Catholic priest who became President, that if he didn’t proclaim independence, he would give Hungary free reign to occupy her former territory.
Which brings me to Hungary. Hungary allied with Hitler to get back her lost lands, i.e.; Slovakia, Transylvania, Croatia, and parts of Slovenia, Serbia, and the Carpatho Rusyn homeland. Hungary had anti-Semitic laws, but no gas chambers; indeed, Jews from Slovakia felt safer crossing into Hungary. When Admiral Horthy was overthrown, and the pro-Nazi Szalassy took over, then Hungary sent Jews to the Nazis and to their death.
Romania allied with Hitler to stop Hungary from getting back any more Romanian territory. To make up for ceding parts of Transylvania to Hungary’ Hitler awarded Ukrainian territory to Romania. It must be said,that being Orthodox,the Romanians did allow churches to be opened in their Ukrainian territory.
Orthodox Bulgaria allied with Hitler to gain Greek and Yugoslav territory, plus a border region which had been in Romania. Bulgaria, however, didn’t allow her Jews to be shipped off, and refused to fight the Soviet Union. Bishop Tikhon has already spoken of the heroic stand taken by the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
Finally, there were Soviet prisoners of war who took up arms against the Soviet Union. In fact, far more Soviets collaborated with the Nazis than White emigres. Solzhenitsyn poses the question as to just why so many Soviets volunteered to fight in General Vlasov’s Russian Liberation Army, even when it was clear that Hitler was losing the war. They hated Stalin’s repression so much that they were willing to ally themselves with an equally evil dictator; furthermore a dictator that considered them inferior.
All of the above in no way indicates sympathy with Hitler, nor with the anti-Semitism. I lost three Jewish relatives myself, not to mention Slavic relatives at the hands of both the Soviets and the Nazis.
I’m afraid I must agree with Solzhenitsyn; in 1945, the worst thing in the world was to be a Russian. To me the end of the war for Russia marked the triumph of one evil dictator over another. I don’t condemn the patriotism of the average Russian against Hitler; but I refuse to condemn General Vlasov for taking up arms with Hitler. To me, that is validating Stalin and the evil Soviet System. I’m just not going to do it.
I forgot to mention that not only did Finland not give up her Jews,but she may have been the only Hitler ally to have Jews fighting in the ranks of her army. Again, it was opposition to Stalin, not necessarily being pro-Hitler
Estonian Slovak writes the most sensible summary I’ve seen. Both the complexity and the useful detail.
George, your syllogism is so simplistic. Many thanks to ES for this fine post.
Thank you, Tim! God Bless You and your wife for many more blessed years!
Estonian slovak. From Bulgaria Christ is Risen and thank you for excellent summary of a complex situation.
I think that if any other race apart from germans can be considered to have been anti- semitic in holocaust mode, it is some of the Ukrainian nation, sadly.
But I think it important to say that fascist anti -semitism was different to traditional old regime anti semitism as not based on religion but race. There was no escape by Baptism. You were doomed by blood.
George, you omitted step 7: The Ukrainian people overwhelmingly elect a Jewish president.
well his step 4 and step 6 are false to begin with
gm is not confused just pushing a false narrative
The US government completely supports the evil Hitler glorifying Nazi Maidan Coup, which makes Trump an evil Hitler glorifying Nazi too, logically.
That might be true, Beryl, if Trump supported all factions and personalities of the US government, which he clearly does not. If he did, he would not be so bitterly hated. Haven’t you been watching the news? It’s kind of a “thing” now. A lot of people hate Trump!
How can Epiphany be recognized a bishop when he has not been validly ordained? Ordination cannot be conferred by fiat.
Metropolitan Epiphany was ordained by the deposed former Metropolitan of Kiev, Filaret Denisenko. Metropolitan Filaret was formerly a canonical bishop of the Moscow Patriarchate who incidentally also ordained Patriarch Kyrill as a bishop. So, it seems that Metropolitan Epiphany’s ordination still retained a form of apostolic succession. The eventual reconciliation of the “Kievan Patriarchate” with Constantinople would then be considered to have brought the necessary fulfillment to the form where it was previously lacking.
However, it’s not clear to me how the episcopal ordinations of the now defunct “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” would have any apostolic succession. Apparently the original members of that organization didn’t even have the “form of succession”, being ordained not by bishops but rather by priests. I think others have questioned this also.
No, Joseph. Filaret is a formerly defrocked, excommunicated metropolitan and nothing he did between 1997 and Oct 2018 was of any consequence. (One could argue nothing he still does is of any consequence.) Epiphany didn’t even complete his theological training until 1999 so there was no apostolic succession going on for his gang through Filaret.
Gail, when St. Alexis Toth was received into the Church, he wasn’t reordained. He simply went to confession and then walked into the altar and was vested as an Orthodox priest. The bishop who actually ordained St. Alexis a priest was under the Pope of Rome and thus was anathematized by the Orthodox Church.
Nonetheless, that Roman Catholic ordination was considered to carry the empty form of apostolic succession, so presumably succession was fulfilled when St. Alexis went to confession and reconciled with the Orthodox bishop.
Additionally, I realize that Archbishop Lazar Puhalo’s example scandalizes a lot of people, but again this is someone who was made a bishop in the “Kievan Patriarchate”, and yet he was granted to retain his Episcopal title by simply reconciling with the OCA. Archbishop Lazar was never re-ordained.
We’re not talking about reordination; we’re talking about being ordained or brought into the Church through a legitimate bishop. Filaret was not a legitimate bishop during the timeframe we’re talking about.
With regard to Archbishop Lazar, he formally repented and was brought back into the Church through the OCA Holy Synod. Not sure they should have done it but they did and the greater Church accepted it.
None of these conditions apply to Filaret and because of the way the CP attempted to bring him back in as an “honorary patriarch” (per Filaret) within the territory of the canonical Church who deposed him, it is most irregular.
Yes, “Patriarch Filaret” was not a legitimate bishop and neither was Metropolitan Epiphany. However, when they reconciled with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Metropolitan Epiphany’s prior ordination was accepted by the EP for reasons of economia.
The same could be said for St. Alexis Toth’s ordination by a Roman Catholic bishop. It was accepted by the ROC for reasons of economia. Archbishop Lazar’s episcopal ordination by the “Kievan Patriarchate” was also accepted for reasons of economia by the OCA.
Monk James points out that “apostolic succession” is not actually an Orthodox concept. I’m not sure I agree with him. However, if true, then perhaps Orthodox bishops do have a right to ordain by fiat. Perhaps that would explain the EP’s acceptance of the ordinations from the now defunct “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church”.
All of this would be true IF the Local Churches recognized what the CP did in Ukraine. They didn’t. They said so publicly and they did not show up at the enthronement. No bishop, even the CP, can just do something and have it fly. There has to be agreement. In this case, there wasn’t. It’s as if it never happened.
It is exactly why the so-called Macedonian Orthodox Church is not legit, Gail. Admittedly, Tito’s communists were involved there; this Ukrainian formation doesn’t have that excuse. I do agree with Monk James about apostolic sucession. Don’t get me started about Puhalo; I respect Bishop Tikhon for defending the integrity of ROCOR, by recognizing the fact that Puhalo is a deposed ROCOR deacon. I would certainly never invite Puhalo to my parish to lecture or serve. Now, if my bishop chooses to serve with Puhalo, then it’s on him; just as it’s on the OCA Synod for accepting Puhalo. By the way,Vladyka Tikhon is the only hierarch on my prayer list that I haven’t met in person. I respect him as a bishop; although I’m not a huge fan of his politics.
I agree with you 100% and I also admire Bishop Tikhon for standing up against it.
If an Orthodox Christian someone goes up to the Eucharistic Cup to receive Holy Communion and Filaret gives the Eucharist to him/her on a spoon, is it the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ? Most decidedly NOT!
I’m sure you will correct me, Gail, but I have to say your statement, “defrocked, excommunicated metropolitan and nothing he did between 1997 and Oct 2018 was of any consequence” is a puzzlement, since logically, it would mean that everything and everyone connected with him is of no consequence. That’s a LOT of people, churches, liturgies, Paschas, and holiness, which you have just rendered “of no consequence.” We have well- known sinners who are bishops but were not defrocked, and yet, the Eucharist they serve is the Body and Blood of Christ. Who are we to know for certain who is “of no consequence” and who isn’t?
Actually, it’s about 1% of the population and they have the canonical Chruch if they get hungry for Orthodoxy any time soon.
Thanks for setting me straight, Gail.
A bit higher than 1% if you include all Greek Orthodox Christians as well.
Well, there are Greek Catholics in Ukraine, but they’re under the Pope.
This brings to mind the Donatist schism and Saint Cyprian before that.
The canonical, i.e. true Orthodox Church has grace-filled and sanctifying mysteries, even if the minister of those mysteries is sinful. The schismatics do not have grace-filled and sanctifying mysteries, even if the minister of those mysteries is pious. Ecclesiology 101.
Therefore, Filaret’s pseudo-church, at least in a spiritual sense, did nothing – and does nothing – of any consequence due to its schismatic nature. Baptisms of schismatics are ‘deluges of defiling pagan water’ and their eucharist is ‘food of demons,’ according to the Fathers.
Basil: The donatists held heretical ideas; therefore it is obvious and logical that the Holy Spirit would not turn the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. However, the hair rises up on the back of my neck when I read statements like yours and others. “Filaret’s pseudo-church” practices Orthodox Divine Liturgy, does it not? How do you KNOW for certain that the Holy Spirit withholds grace? I cannot even fathom that a pious, believing Orthodox Christian receives “food of demons” if she or he attends one of these “schismatic” churches. “Baptisms of schismatics” and “deluges of defiling pagan water” and “food of demons”… is there no grace? Is God not bigger than every human attempt to know what is of God and what isn’t? I’m sorry, I can’t help it, I cannot judge these people. MP has been accused many times of being the schismatics and we cannot judge them either.
When a clergyman is deposed from his orders — as was Mikhail Denisenko — he is no longer capable of officiating in any of the Christian Mysteries. He is returned to the status of a layman, and is ontologically unable to function as a priest or bishop.
Hence, every single liturgical action performed by Denisenko since his deposition by the Russian Orthodox Church which ordained him, is null and void. The ‘Eucharist’ he offers remains mere bread and wine, and the people who avail themselves of his pretended ministrations receive only those physical elements. In addition, they might share his excommunication, depending on the level of their awareness of and participation in his rebellion against The Church.
This is one of those signal differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic ecclesiologies: The Catholics would say that Denisenko remains a bishop who is still able to function, even if illegally, as a bishop. We Orthodox Christians say that he is a layman now, with absolutely no authority to officiate at anything in The Church.
I trust that this point of ecclesial order is clear enough now.
Monk James, since my other replies have not appeared yet, I would like to ask you this: how do you know for certain that the bread and wine is not changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ? In other words, just to be clear on this, does the Holy Spirit make the change or not?
Only the Holy Spirit makes the change of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, but this happens only within The Church, and at the prayers of its legitimate bishops and priests.
So, he is valid on one Sunday, and the Person of the Holy Spirit makes the change, then he is defrocked and that very next Sunday, the Holy Spirit refuses to make the change, and suddenly, all the faithful are being lied to. The Eucharist is there one week, and the very next week, because God is mad or something, it is only bread and wine. I see… I see I see said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.
What in the world are you talking about, Beryl? Epiphany, et. al, were never valid (interesting word you use). Filaret was anathematized in 1997 and this was recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches including the Church of Constantinople. Epiphany was ordained hieromonk by Filaret in 2008. You see the problem? People who are anathematized cannot ordain people.
There are no “faithful” being lied to. Everyone involved knows the full story but the sad reality is that people don’t care enough about the Church to do things the right way. At any point, these “millions of people” can petition to come into the canonical Chruch the right way and God will bless it.
There is nothing that God did to create this situation. Men have free will, Beryl. These particular men circumvented the rules. When men choose to do this, they separate themselves from God as Bartholomew has done. If you want to be “mad” at something, be mad at him. He is the one who is leading people astray.
Beryl answer me this: If you knowingly bought a bracelet that was a knockoff would you flash it around telling everyone it was from Tiffany’s? If the answer is yes, you’re never going to understand the Church.
Gail,
God can turn our phonies… into trophies! I wouldn’t be ashamed to flash that bling around.
Yeah, but He didn’t.
He did with the man born blind. Christ turned the man’s phony blind eyes into a trophy, so “that the works of God should be manifest in him”.
Let’s say there are several hospitals in a neighborhood. People go to these hospitals based on their locality, for the healing of their bodies (in the case of the Eucharist, it would be for their souls and bodies, but this is an example, which I hope is a better one than comparing bracelets to bling). Doctors are employed by the hospitals. One day, a group of very powerful and wealthy doctors put pressure on another group of doctors, telling them they must not practice medicine in ***their*** hospitals, and the word is spread throughout the land that these doctors are nothing but frauds. The doctors are all trained at the same medical schools; and the now-“fraudulent” doctors have ***millions*** of patients!
God exists. God heals the broken -hearted and binds up their wounds. Whatever pat answers are given in response to this analogy, I know for certain that the Holy Spirit is NOT going to abandon the sick and the suffering. People in Ukraine can’t just “change churches,” for goodness’ sake. Little old ladies, children, hard working people attend these churches, whether MP or UOC, and they stand in freezing weather on cold floors, worshiping the same God and waiting in line to receive the Eucharist, and no armchair analyst can decide what the Holy Spirit will or will not do.
They didn’t even stand in freezing weather on cold floors for the enthronement. The police and national guard were sent home. This “church” is not the “hospital” you imagine it to be. It’s a fun house with smoke and mirrors.
There are always going to be people who resist the Truth. Even though they are without excuse because God has placed the Church right in front of them, they don’t see it because they don’t want it.
WHAT?? Okay, I’m done.
“There is nothing that God did to create this situation.”
-Gail Sheppard
“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else.
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”
Isaiah 45:5-7
Beryl, you are addressing a former Evangelical who went to the Cadillac of Bible Study (Bible Study Fellowship) for 15 years. I went so often and for so long, I had to step back to allow space for other women to participate. There is not a lot you can teach me about Scripture and I am not alone. Many of us can quote chapter and verse.
What is appreciated are critical thinking skills. How do these passages support your contention that these “poor, cold” Ukrainians have found themselves outside the canonical Church through no fault of their own? Before you answer, spend some time researching it and determine what’s changed between then and now (if anything). Talk about why it made sense for Bartholomew to usher them back in a way that precludes the Local Churches from recognizing it. What were their objections? Were they reasonable? If not, why not?
I’m not addressing this to anyone in particular but there are a lot of people who are misled by strong emotions. They wrongly intuit that great passion means something must be “right.” In reality, strong feelings are rarely the barometer they portend to be. The evil one has a heyday with our capacity to feel. Knowing in one’s heart what one is feeling is true should prompt an individual to get down on their knees and ask God. When God answers, it is usually in a whisper so all the angst has to be set aside to hear Him. One must ask often, too, because there is no other way to know His voice. It is the voice that is consistently born out to be true.
We all are capable of being misled. By way of example, I know this priest who told a friend of mine that God said she would marry this guy. The woman was new to the Church and believed the priest so everything she did (including separating from her husband; yes, she was married at the time!) she did with the idea she would marry the guy in question. Imagine her surprise when she later learned the priest had married him to someone else! She confronted the priest and reminded him of what he had told her. He said he made a mistake. She said, “If you made a mistake you were clearly not talking to God. If not to God, to whom?” Whom, indeed.
Monk James,
The former Metropolitan of Kiev, Filaret Denisenko, is not even recognized as a layman in the Russian Orthodox Church. He was anathematized in 1997 by the ROC, and from their point of view is completely outside of the Church.
This was the same situation for St. Alexis Toth, whose feast day we remember today, joyous feast! As a Uniate clergyman, he was considered to be completely outside of the Orthodox Church, that is until he reconciled with the Orthodox bishop in San Francisco. Until his reconciliation, all the “sacraments” that St. Alexis had formerly officiated over were completely outside of the Church. They had no ecclesial meaning, and they still don’t. However, after his reconciliation, going forward, the sacraments he officiated over were inside of the Church, and those sacraments still retain their ecclesial significance.
As scandalous as it may be to many people, the same could be said for Archbishop Lazar Puhalo. Going forward from the point of his reconciliation with the OCA, all of the sacraments he has since officiated over still retain ecclesial significance. Any “sacraments” he officiated over prior to this, such as baptisms, marriages, ordinations, etc., have no ecclesial significance by themselves apart from reconciliation. I believe this is a very important point.
The reconciliation of the former schismatics in Ukraine to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not actually “validate” anything done prior to the reconciliation. Rather, it’s from the moment of reconciliation that anything is given it’s ecclesial significance.
Denisenko was laicized by a formal action of the Russian Orthodox Church. His self-initiated excommunication was triggered — in accordance with the canons — when he pretended to officiate in spite of his laicization.
The rest of this post is very confused and confusing. I prefer ignore it here and just stand by my previous comments on the matter of St Alexis Toth, et.
Monk James, it’s the same principle as “baptisms” outside of the Church. These “baptisms” are often accepted for reasons of economia for the reception of converts. It would be a mistake, though, to make the inference that “baptisms” outside of the Church are somehow still of the Church. Rather, it’s the act of reconciliation and God’s grace that allows for schismatic “baptisms” to be received into the Church. The same for marriages and sometimes clerical ordinations.
Although the practice of receiving Uniate clergy without re-ordination may be peculiar to the ROC, it’s interesting that the Ecumenical Patriarchate is using this self-same medicine of the ROC to receive the former schismatics in Ukraine.
Joseph, various situations can be “accepted for reasons of economia” ONLY IF THE CHURCH RECOGNIZES IT. You keep leaving that part out.
Gail, no, I’m not leaving that part out. I said “it’s the act of reconciliation and God’s grace.” The act of reconciliation with the Church is vitally important. That’s the part where the Church recognizes it.
TRUE reconciliation with the Church is vitally important and there are ways to do that. For a bishop to go against his brother bishops is not that way.
“Ecumenical Patriarch: There are no more schismatics in Ukraine, because the Church has restored them. And we consider it a great blessing of the grace of the Holy Spirit that so many millions of people have entered into canonical regularity again. If you refer to the Proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils, you will see that what the Church of Constantinople did is not a new and unprecedented act. The Fathers were always anxious to create the conditions for unity and reintegration into the Church. Having the worst information before them, they were trying to get the best result. So to your question about whether we could perform this restoration, I answer straight to you: of course we could, since there were no dogmatic differences. We have already referred to the 9th and 17th Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which entitle the Ecumenical Patriarch to take care of such matters. We did not discover this right, or rather this great ecclesiastical responsibility, but we received it. And the Holy Fathers who introduced it knew well why they did it.”
https://www.ecupatria.org/2019/03/22/interview-of-ecumenical-patriarch-bartholomew-by-z-rakocevic-for-the-serbian-newspaper-politika/
According to one, with whom no one agrees.
Gail. Dear Joseph, good man with good intentions does not get it. I worked in London with a doctor, yank actually, who was very good but turned out to be a fraud and alcohol as stuck off previously.
They did norw say,” ok he doing good, let’s just carry on”! He ended up in Uk court and as i recall, prison and deported.
Denisenko has not even done good and note he is deceiving the Phanar with lies as he did Moscow and all Bartholomaios can say is ‘never mind’ This man is ultra roman when suits him and presbytarian when suits him. I assume that occassional lapses into Orthodoxy are known?
I hear you, Nikos, but I don’t want the Phanar’s words (Joseph’s) to go unchallenged. I know people look at this blog and I don’t want anyone in Bartholomew’s camp to think that we’re going to get over it. I also want our hierarchs to know that we support them. Finally, I want the people who wander onto the blog and never say a word to know that what is seeming “kind” and “right”, is not. Whether Joseph knows it or not (and he may), he is part of a campaign to justify something that should have never happened. It’s critical that the Church separate herself from the interests of maverick bishops who cater to geopolitical concerns and let it be known that this kind of thing just doesn’t fly.
Gail, when you say that you want “our hierarchs to know that we support them.” Are you excluding the bishops of the Greek Archdiocese?
It’s probably also worth noting that the OCA bishops aren’t taking such a hard stance on this issue. The OCA wants to maintain good relations with both Moscow and Constantinople. The focus of the OCA tends to be more on building up Orthodoxy in America, rather than overseas.
I support all bishops who support the Church, recognizing that there may be some who are between a rock and a hard place at the moment.
With regard to the OCA, they took the only stance they could, specifically, ” . . . the resolution must come from the conciliar and synodal process present in the Church’s tradition, a process that, in the face of the Ukrainian situation, has been advocated by others throughout the Orthodox Church and which our Holy Synod wholeheartedly endorses.” What more could they say?
Gail, I don’t think that’s such a hard stance. The OCA is taking a “let’s wait and see” stance if anything. That’s good, wise, and prudent. The OCA was never asked by Constantinople to recognize the newly formed OCU in Ukraine, and likewise, the Moscow Patriarchate isn’t requiring the OCA to break communion with Constantinople.
It was heartening to see so many OCA bishops at the last Assembly of Canonical Bishops in the U.S.A. in October 2018.
http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/
I personally admire the approach the OCA bishops are taking in regards to this situation.
I disagree, Joseph. A little self-governed, autocephalous Church in our neck of the woods is not going to huff and puff and blow down the house of Constantinople! The most they can do is what they did. They came out in support of the Church and the way the Church handles these things. The “wait and see” aspect of it had only to do with how the OCA is to operate in the interim. They don’t want people, prematurely, reacting one way or another until the situation is resolved at a higher level. Do not infer that they anticipate no resolution to this mess and are content to let things stand, as is. This is not the case at all.
Oh, and Joseph, read where the OCA says it is their intention to: “. . . withhold, with several of our sister Churches, recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.” That pretty much sums up their position, doesn’t it? https://oca.org/news/headline-news/holy-synod-of-bishops-issues-archpastoral-letter-on-ukraine
Gail, that’s just “wait and see”. The OCA is not going to do anything until there is more of a consensus. I fully support that. What I don’t support is breaking communion with Constantinople. Only Moscow has done this and without the consensus of the other Local Churches.
They can do no more than stand with canonical Church.
Beryl Wells Hamilton (May 9, 2019 at 1:42 pm) says:
(SNIPPING FALSE ANALOGIES AND EMOTIONAL APPEALS TO LOGICAL FALLACIES)
‘no armchair analyst can decide what the Holy Spirit will or will not do.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps this is true on its face, but we have to look into the matter more deeply, more honestly.
Whether those who analyze such things as the schism provoked in the Russian Orthodox Church by the uncanonical actions of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople are gauging its implications accurately or not isn’t really the issue here, and their position on the matter wouldn’t affect reality much if they sit in armchairs or give their opinions from a flying trapeze.
The fact is that God doesn’t have to play by the rules. This is why we can take our Lord Jesus Christ at His word when He tells the ‘wise thief’ that they will be together in Paradise on the very day when they died on their respective crosses. The rest of us, though, must come to faith and be baptized, and live the Christian life as best we can in order to enter Paradise with Christ.
Basically, God doesn’t have to play by the rules, but we must certainly play by the rules if we are, as St Paul says, ‘working out our salvation in fear and trembling’.
Over these last twenty Christian centuries, The Church — and its boundaries — have come into very clear definition. Endowed as we are by our Creator with several of His own divine characteristics, we have the ability to make moral choices, exercising the gift free will.
Some people, even some organizations, choose to depart from The Church. This is sad and regrettable, and we pray for their repentance and return (pretty the same word in the scriptures) to Christ and to His ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’.
Where they go and what they do while they’re apart from The Church — even if they pretend to imitate the rituals and falsely say that they accept The Tradition of The Church — are matters which are completely up to them and do not imply any sort of connection with The Church which they have left.
Objectively, then, we can say for a fact that their rituals are empty gestures, and that their version of communion is mere bread and wine; their ordinations accomplish nothing.
On the other hand, the action of divine grace in individual hearts and souls is something which we mortals are in no position to comment on, We can, though, see something of God’s hand in the return of some her4etics and schismatics to The Church.
As we sing during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, ‘let us not make excuses for our sins’ — or for anyone else’s.
Joseph doesn’t get it. St. Alexis did not start out Orthodox, then switch to the Unia, and then seek to come back. Philaret and Puhalo were both deposed by Synods of Bishops. At most, Puhalo should have been received in his pre-schism rank of deacon. If he cared so much about his flock, he would have admitted his error and humbled himself.
“On the other hand, the action of divine grace in individual hearts and souls is something which we mortals are in no position to comment on.” Which is what I was saying, and could have done without your
intentional “I know better than you” responses. Nevertheless, thanks for your recognition of the truth as stated in the sentence I snipped.
LOL OK
I’m with Gail on this one.
Me, too.
Beryl Wells Hamilton (May 10, 2019 at 1:21 pm) says
“On the other hand, the action of divine grace in individual hearts and souls is something which we mortals are in no position to comment on.” Which is what I was saying, and could have done without your
intentional “I know better than you” responses. Nevertheless, thanks for your recognition of the truth as stated in the sentence I snipped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NO! NO! You have said no such thing, nothing at all similar to what I wrote here. And, just in case you were wondering, I and a great many others –here and apparently elsewhere — actually do know batter than you regarding this issue of authentic Orthodox Christian ecclesiology. You could not have done, and obviously cannot do without such feedback, and you should be grateful for the correction.
What you were expressing here was the greatly mistaken idea, based in a very confused, sentimental and antiorthodox ecclesiological theory, that God’s mercy would allow the grace of the Holy Spirit to operate in the schismatic groups pretending to be The Church, and somehow validate their rituals. But, as I say, , this a serious error.
On the other hand, I am allowing for the blessed possibility that some of those schismatics, as individuals, might respond to the grace of God and return to The Church — not as a group — but one by one or two or three at a time.
Regardless of Constantinople’s false teachings on the matter, the Orthodox Christian churches have not recognized — and will never recognize — the schismatics as a legitimate Orthodox Christian church.
Further to Papal visit to Bulgaria. All over bulgarian tv news today and this evening with discussion. He of course was here as head of state, as not invited by Church.
I guess the Catholics were glad to see him, one assumes , and public in mild way.
But his words re immigrants not received well at all for reasons I have mentioned.
Interesting seeing bits of the Mass on tv how much more tridentine the Mass was looking, as the Church. Cultural influence?
No. All of the ‘ordinations’ performed by Denisenko after his deposition were empty rituals without ecclesial significance — and still are. His ‘regularization’ by Patriarch Bartholomew was also invalid, since Constantinople had no authority to intervene in the internal affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church. Likewise, Dumenko and all the other ‘bishops’ and lower clergy of the ‘Orthodox Church of Ukraine’ remain laymen.
BTW: The concept of ‘apostolic succession’ is an aspect of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, a way of looking at the episcopate which we Orthodox Christians do not share. In a nutshell, since not a single one of our Lord’s twelve apostles ever was the bishop of any place, it is impossible for bishops in any place to be their successors. The apostles founded churches, appointed bishops, and moved on.
This is particularly clear at Rome, where the RC pope derives his cachet from being the ‘successor of St Peter’, but this is simply not true.
As can be seen from earliest Christian documents, and despite RC obfuscations of the facts, he church at Rome enjoys the distinction of being founded by both Sts Peter and Paul, who appointed St Linus as the first bishop of the city.
The question remains, then, if there is such a thing as ‘apostolic succession’, what sort of cachet does the Roman pope derive from being the successor of St Linus, as he actually is.
Monk James, that’s a very interesting point you’re making about “apostolic succession” not being an aspect of Orthodox ecclesiology. Please let me know if you have any examples of this you could share.
Please see my reply to ‘Ioannis’ on this point.
Monk James,
We affirm that the Church is “Apostolic”. Your reply to Ioannis doesn’t show how “apostolic succession” is different from Orthodox ecclesiology. Saying that Christ’s twelve apostles weren’t bishops doesn’t prove anything. Christ wasn’t a “bishop” either, and yet St. Peter refers to Christ as “Shepherd and Bishop”.
Christ’s own apostolic ministry came from the Father: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” This is the beginning of apostolic succession, and thus St. Peter later refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Whether or not St. Peter actually was liturgically ordained as the Bishop of Rome doesn’t seem to be of consequence. Who could have liturgically ordained him anyhow? Regardless, we know that St. Peter went to Rome as an apostle of Jesus Christ and established the Church there.
Interestingly enough, St. John Chrysostom in his Homily 10 on Second Timothy refers to St. Linus as “second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”.
Thank you Joseph!
As you correctly pointed out,
” Whether or not St. Peter actually was liturgically ordained as the Bishop of Rome doesn’t seem to be of consequence. ”
Indeed the Rock of Faith is Christ Himself.
Your point about Homily 10 is, nevertheless, an interesting one.
I looked it up in the exact original Greek and it says,
“This Linus, SOME mention that he became the second bishop of the church of the Romans, after Peter.”
Chrysostom does not say it with an absolute certainty.
We can be certain from the words of Paul and Luke who lived at the same time as Peter:
-Luke (Acts 14 and 15.17) does not mention anything about Peter going to Rome.
-When Paul went to Rome he met Christians already there, but he says nothing about Peter in Rome.(Acts 28,15)
-Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (16, 3-17) he sends greetings to Andronicus etc but he does not name Peter.How could he ignore Peter if he was there and indeed as Bishop of Rome?
Peter may have gone to Rome at an old age and died there.
Christ is risen, truly risen!
Dear Friends –
Since this is a rather complicated post, I’ll preserve the writer’s original words here and interpolate my responses to his points.
Monk James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph Lipper (May 3, 2019 at 7:54 pm) says
We affirm that the Church is “Apostolic”.
~~~
Yes. In the Symbol of the Faith, we profess to believe ‘in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church’. Without getting into the vaticanist misrepresentations of the word ‘catholic’, and while ‘one’ and ‘holy’ are fairly transparent in meaning, we cn turn to our great teacher of The Faith, the holy Apostle Paul, who wrote (Ephesians :0) that The Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself being the Cornerstone and Rock on which the whole edifice is defined and made true.
It’s clear from other locations in the New Testament that St Paul — by a divine gift – sees himself as the full equal of the Twelve. He is accepted as such by them, and by The Tradition altogether. In fact, our liturgical texts refer to Sts Peter and Paul jointly as ‘princes of the Apostles’.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your reply to Ioannis doesn’t show how “apostolic succession” is different from Orthodox ecclesiology. Saying that Christ’s twelve apostles weren’t bishops doesn’t prove anything. Christ wasn’t a “bishop” either, and yet St. Peter refers to Christ as “Shepherd and Bishop”.
~~~~
It is unhelpful to refer to a bad translation here or elsewhere. In the first Christian century, the designation of ‘bishop’ had not yet come into existence, at least not as a separate concept of the word. The Greek word episkopos means ‘overseer’ or (more latinately) ‘supervisor’. That our Lord Jesus Christ was and remains the Chief Shepherd of the people called by His Name is not in dispute, and it is pointless to appeal to a bad translation to suggest that either Our Lord or His Twelve Apostles were bishops.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christ’s own apostolic ministry came from the Father: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.”
~~~~
This is an appeal to an overly literal connection between apostellO and ‘apostle’, and can’t be taken seriously.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the beginning of apostolic succession,
~~~
No, it is not. It’s the beginning of apostleship. Succession is another matter entirely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and thus St. Peter later refers to himself as “an apostle of Jesus Christ”. Whether or not St. Peter actually was liturgically ordained as the Bishop of Rome doesn’t seem to be of consequence. Who could have liturgically ordained him anyhow? Regardless, we know that St. Peter went to Rome as an apostle of Jesus Christ and established the Church there.
~~~
Nonsense. Liturgical ordination in the first Christian century was largely unknown, although we have some evidence that an official ‘laying on of hands’ took place even while the New Testament was being written, certainly completed before A.D. 70. Formal rites of ordination were developed later, but their main purpose seems to have been in place from the beginning, as we read in earliest Christian documents.
It is clear from several earliest Christian writings that the Apostles Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome, and appointed St Linus as the first bishop of the city.
This is evident not only from the observations of Sts Eirenaios and Polykarpos, but also from the formal history compiled by Eusebios at the request of the holy emperor Constantine.
Our Lord Jesus Christ once commented that if the people of Jerusalem failed to acknowledge Him as their Savior, ‘the very stones would cry out’. This is also true of Rome regarding Sts Peter and Paul.
The Vatican Basilica (‘St Peter’s) is built over the tomb of St Peter. Yet, perhaps in imitation of prechristian Roman practice, there are statues of its tutelary deities just in front. As we face the façade of the Vatican Basilica, we see a twice-life-size statue of St Peter to our left. To our right, there is a matching statue of St Paul. These statues replaced more ancient images when the basilica was rebuilt in the 16th century from Constantine’s original church.
In the Basilica of St John Lateran (the Roman pope’s cathedral, named after a prechristian Roman family on whose estate the church was built) we find that the elaborate architectural canopy over the altar houses a reliquary which contains the skulls (or at least fragments of them) of both Sts Peter and Paul.
Why should such an honor be given to both saints, unless they were both founders of the church at Rome? In the very cathedral of the bishop of Rome?
Then, there is the matter of the Roman ‘Canon Missae’, the most central part of the Roman Catholic Mass. There, before the mention of all the other earliest bishops of the city, we find Sts Peter and Paul, then Linus, Clement, etc. Why would St Paul ne mentioned there if he had not helped establish the church at Rome?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interestingly enough, St. John Chrysostom in his Homily 10 on Second Timothy refers to St. Linus as “second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter”.
~~~
If we read the divine Chrysostom closely here, we find that he asserts no such thing. He merely mentions that ‘some people’ think this. It’s inaccurate and unfair to suggest that St John Chrysostom thought that St Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
MJS says: “Why should such an honor be given to both saints, unless they were both founders of the church at Rome? In the very cathedral of the bishop of Rome?”
I don’t mean to be lawyerly, but these kinds of rhetorical questions are just that: they are not evidence.
A different answer is quite possible: both Peter and Paul, the greatest of the apostles, were martyred at Rome; this is well-established by tradition. Rome was the center of the world. Rome had an early Christian body. These martyrdoms sealed the centrality of Rome in the Christian world; they represented transcendence from Judea to the Empire. In short, this was of great importance in itself. The ‘foundation of the church’ at Rome is a back-formation.
Monk James Silver: “Liturgical ordination in the first Christian century was largely unknown, … Formal rites of ordination were developed later”
Sources?
Citing rules of evidence protocols which apply in civil courts is a red herring here, rhetoric being what it is.
The preeminence of Rome among the ancient churches was not derived from the fact that, among many other great martyrs, both Sts Peter and Paul suffered and died for their Christian faith there about A.D. 67.
Rather, it was that Rome, alone among all the churches, was founded by two apostles rather than only one, St Paul’s mission to the Gentiles coinciding there with St Peter’s mission to the Jews, of whom it is said there were about thirty thousand in the city at that time, many Christian beliebers among them.
And, in a curious borrowing from linguistic science, it is gratuitous and insupportable to assert that ‘The ‘foundation of the church’ at Rome is a back-formation.’
“Back-formation” may be a poor choice; couldn’t come up with the mot juste. Perhaps just ‘after-the-fact rationalization’.
If you define the assembly or gathering of Christians at Rome before Sts. Peter and Paul ‘founded’ it (as when St. Paul wrote to it) as not being a church, but only becoming a church when they made it one, then who can argue with it? It’s your definition. Seems some sort of a tautology to me, but again that is perhaps not the right word. ‘Circular’ comes to mind.
By the way, what’s the word in Greek for a gathering or assembly, as, for example, of Christians? Say, for instance, in a house or building where they regularly met?
“Monk James Silver”,
Continuing from my unanswered 5 points,
https://www.monomakhos.com/glory-to-god-in-the-highest-schism-between-antioch-jerusalem-is-healed/#comment-137225
I am adding some more here
and I do hope to get answers from you.
As you correctly pointed ” this is a rather complicated post”
we can easily get lost, who said what, who replied what.
That is my reason for numbering my points, and I ask you (for the 3rd time) kindly please number your replies accordingly.
If you think you have replied to all my 5 points, I certainly cannot find them if they are spread all over the place and also without numbers.
OK, here is the next one:
6)
On Mayday 4.35 you said:
” BTW: The concept of ‘apostolic succession’ is an aspect of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, a way of looking at the episcopate which we Orthodox Christians do not share. ”
You know it is very easy to axiomatically say something, but more difficult to give a document reference.
I try my best to avoid undocumented info now:
In the 3rd General the WCC in New Delhi 1961, the Orthodox
representatives submitted the following:
“Αληθῶς διά τούς Ὀρθοδόξους ἡ ἀποστολική διαδοχή τῶν ἐπισκόπων καί ἡ μυστηριακή ἱερωσύνη εἶναι συστατικόν καί καταστατικόν καί ὡς ἐκ τούτου ὑποχρεωτικόν στοιχεῖον αύτῆς τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ὑποστάσεως. ”
And my translation:
” Truly for the Orthodox, the Apostolic Succession of Bishops and the sacramental priesthood is a constituent and constitutive and therefore a mandatory element of that ecclesiastical constitution.”
Why do you say that the Orthodox do not share such a thing,
where did you find this information.
Looking forward to your straight answer.
Martin (May 5, 2019 at 4:27 am) says
Monk James Silver: “Liturgical ordination in the first Christian century was largely unknown, … Formal rites of ordination were developed later”
Sources?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It is self-evident that our liturgical rituals developed over time. Scholars from St Simeon of Thessalonike to Saballanovich and Bulgakov and even Taft have elucidated this history amply.
On the other hand, the New Testament mentions ‘the breaking of bread’ as a reference to the Eucharistic liturgy and ‘laying-on of hands’ to describe ordination; there are many instances of baptism, and St James mentions anointing the sick as well as confession, following our Lord’s own instruction to His apostles and disciples. There were no formal rituals for these Mysteries at that time — just the basic structures.
I have no idea what additional sources ‘Martin’ might be seeking, but that’s pretty much all there is.
Ioannis (May 5, 2019 at 5:48 am) says
SNIP
” Truly for the Orthodox, the Apostolic Succession of Bishops and the sacramental priesthood is a constituent and constitutive and therefore a mandatory element of that ecclesiastical constitution.”
Why do you say that the Orthodox do not share such a thing,
where did you find this information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did NOT writ that Orthodox Christians do not share the definition of ‘apostolic succession’ as expressed here. Rather, I wrote that we Orthodox Christians do not share the same understanding of ‘apostolic’ succession as held by Roman Catholics.
The RC definition of ‘apostolic succession’ depends on a merely tactile ordination of bishops who have been merely physically ordained by other bishops in a line going back to the last bishop who was in full communion with the church which ordained him.
This is a RC mysteriological opinion called in Latin _ex opere operato_, or ‘from the deed which has been done’. This theory places the authority to ordain bishops and lower clergy in the person of the ordaining bishop regardless of how greatly his (or now even her) faith has differed from that of the church which legitimately ordained the last bishop in his/her ‘line of succession’.
Orthodox Christianity, though, holds that a man’s ordination (and its inherent authority0 belongs not to him personally, but to The Church. Thus, if a bishop breaks faith with The Church, he is deprived of his ordination and all its prerogatives. Any ordinations (and all services) he performs are null and void.
ThAT is the difference between the Orthodox and the Catholics on this point, and I trust that I’ve made it sufficiently clear.
It often happens in ‘ecumenical’ settings that orthodox and heterodox Christians use the very same words, but understand them in very different ways. This is one of those instances.
Saint Paul refers to Christ as both “Apostle” and “High Priest”. In his letter to the Hebrews: “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus”.
Although Christ was not given the earthly title of “bishop” in his ministry on earth, he did and does manifest the fullness of this ministry. Likewise, Christ’s disciples may or may not have been given the title of “bishop”, but all them who were faithful to their calling did manifest the fullness of this ministry through Christ Jesus.
Monk James Silver wrote: “Nonsense. Liturgical ordination in the first Christian century was largely unknown, although we have some evidence that an official ‘laying on of hands’ took place even while the New Testament was being written, certainly completed before A.D. 70. Formal rites of ordination were developed later, but their main purpose seems to have been in place from the beginning, as we read in earliest Christian documents.”
Where are your sources?
There is evidence directly from the sarcophagus of Saint Paul that the bishops, priests and deacons wore vestments, so I believe we can assume from this, and the fact that there was laying on of hands, that there was indeed liturgical ordination.
“Inside they found ‘traces of a precious linen cloth, purple in colour, laminated with pure gold, and a blue coloured textile with filaments of linen,’ Benedict said.
“It also revealed the presence of grains of red incense and traces of protein and limestone. There were also tiny fragments of bone, which, when subjected to Carbon 14 tests by experts, turned out to belong to someone who lived in the first or second century.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/5685157/Bone-fragments-confirmed-to-be-Saint-Paul.html
Monk James Silver: “It is self-evident that our liturgical rituals developed over time.”
Hmm, it is self-evident that you are switching the topic. You wrote “Liturgical ordination in the first Christian century was largely unknown”. And now you write “our liturgical rituals developed over time”. Assuming that the first is accurate, does the second logically follow? No, it does not, sorry.
The stone sarcophagus described here was obviously not St Paul’s original coffin. The saint’s relics were collected and reverently placed in that stone container only during the construction of the basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls, long after the Roman persecutions had ceased and when the clergy began to wear liturgical vestments and conduct services publicy in churches built for that purpose. The article cited here seems to miss that very important point.
It is self-evident that our liturgical rituals developed over time. Scholars from St Simeon of Thessalonike to Saballanovich and Bulgakov and even Taft have elucidated this history amply.
On the other hand, the New Testament mentions ‘the breaking of bread’ as a reference to the Eucharistic liturgy and ‘laying-on of hands’ to describe ordination; there are many instances of baptism, and St James mentions anointing the sick as well as confession, following our Lord’s own instruction to His apostles and disciples. There were no formal rituals for these Mysteries at that time — just the basic structures.
I have no idea what additional sources Beryl Wells Hamilton might be seeking, but that’s pretty much all there is.
Apostolic succession, as understood by the Orthodox Church is fidelity to the apostolic and orthodox teaching, as well as consecration by a legitimate bishop.
The RC understanding is solely based on ‘who laid hands on who,’ meaning that there are a plethora of independent, schismatic, and heretical groups, who can trace their lineage back to some apostolic pedigree somewhere and therefore, according to the RCs, their sacraments are completely valid, but illicit. RC view Orthodoxy as having valid sacraments, performed illicitly, i.e. not under the Petrine obedience.
For more information, find any website of a random vagante church and you’ll doubtless come across their entire episcopal lineage back to an apostle, ‘proving’ their authenticity, despite that they might have female, homosexual, etc. ‘bishops.’
Basil, yes thank you. The fullness of apostolic succession testifies the Church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic”. A separated “apostolic” succession which is not also “one”, “holy”, and “catholic” is empty and meaningless. Apostolic succession is not just the external form of laying on of hands.
Nonetheless, the Church does seem to recognize when the external form has been preserved. We have the example of St. Alexis Toth, whose feast day is this week.
St. Alexis’ reception into the Orthodox faith as a priest does not “validate” his Roman Catholic ordination, but rather it does show the Church accepting St. Alexis as already having a qualified priestly formation and not requiring re-ordination. Apostolic succession was fulfilled when St. Alexis was reconciled to the Orthodox bishop.
Because the parameters of its adoption are largely unknown outside of the Russian Orthodox Church, this practice is not accepted by all the local Orthodox churches. The Russian custom of ‘recognizing’ the ordination of Roman Catholic clergy who convert to Orthodoxy is a by-product of the 16th-17th century uniat movements there.
Originally, some priests (and a even a few bishops) went over to Rome in the ‘Union of Brest-Litovsk. No bishops participated in the ‘Union of Uzhgorod’ a couple of generations later. The converts to Catholicism were promised all sorts of things, including the integrity of their liturgical life, their married priesthood, political and financial advantages, etc.. When it became evident that many of these promises were false, a certain number of clergy and laity reverted to Orthodoxy.
In an exercise of pastoral _oikonomia_, the Russian Orthodox Church hoped to make such reversions more attractive by receiving the clergy as clergy in their previous ranks. This was not intended to be applied to men who had been ordained as uniat clergy and then came to Orthodoxy, but only to men who had been ordained as Orthodox Christian clergy to begin with.
For various reasons, a certain amount of confusion ensued, and the Russian church extended this practice well past its clearly limited useful lifetime, and began to ‘recognize’ the ordinations of all Roman Catholic clergy, uniat or Latin. This was the climate in which St Alexis Toth was received by the Russian Mission’s exarch in North America.
This procedure is still in place in the Russian Orthodox Church, but not elsewhere, as Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev teaches in his recent books. Met. Hilarion apparently thinks that the Russians are correct in this matter, but his ecclesiological principles are questionable.
In any event, the practice is under review, and will probably be abandoned in favor of a closer, more integral understanding of what it means to be in The Church — or outside of it.
Martin (May 5, 2019 at 4:47 pm) says
Monk James Silver: “It is self-evident that our liturgical rituals developed over time.”
Hmm, it is self-evident that you are switching the topic. You wrote “Liturgical ordination in the first Christian century was largely unknown”. And now you write “our liturgical rituals developed over time”. Assuming that the first is accurate, does the second logically follow? No, it does not, sorry.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My two sentences, quoted here, are not in any way mutually exclusive, lacking in logic, or addressing different concepts.
There is no extant evidence of Christian liturgical rituals earlier than the second century, yet we know that Christians served the Eucharist, baptized, confessed, anointed the sick, ordained clergy, etc., from the words of the New Testament itself, probably completed before A.S. 70.
At the same time, although we know from St Paul’s writings that Christians married, there was no formal ritual for this until about the tenth century. The communion spoon was a ninth-century innovation. The vestments of bishops, as we now have them, were adopted in the fifteenth century. This is the development of which I wrote, and it is not opposed to the practices of the protochristians — it merely grew out of them.
Perhaps ‘Martin’ would benefit from some training in logic.
To Monk James.
Yes, I agree with Joseph, please provide some further info supporting this
because I am afraid there are some inaccuracies.
The apostles could not possibly go to every land and every city to bless the place (ie the soil, stones, buildings). They rather ordained men who would in turn ordain other men, that’s the Apostolic Succession spread in space and time. The apostles started it and it is continued in this way.
The historical fact is that not one of Christ’s twelve apostles was ever the bishop of any place, therefore no one succeeded them.
The xharism of the apostles was to found churches by appointing bishops to lead them, These bishops were succeeded by subsequent bishops in those churches, and founded more churches in the absence of the original twelve apostles, but this is not the same thing as succeeding the apostles.
The bishops in a particular region have the canonical authority to establish churches and ordain men to the episcopate, but that authority is inherent in their own episcopate, not a matter of succeeding any apostle.
We have yet to unscramble the mess made at Rome by people who insist that the church there was founded by St Peter and served by him as their first bishop, while history tells us that the church at Rome was founded by Sts Peter and Paul, who appointed St Linus as the city’s first bishop.
This is attested not only in ancient documents, but in the liturgical services of even the Roman, and is evident from the art and architecture of the city.
Monk James, I am afraid, you are (partly) not being accurate and consistent, in this case.
Please clarify the following points:
1) In which history book did you find that “not one of …the apostles was ever the bishop of any place…”?
I hope not in the Wikipedia, which strictly speaking, states that it is not historically certain that Jesus Christ existed!
2) Have you not read the Eusebius’s History of the Church,
where e.g. the following bihops are mentioned:
– James the brother of the Lord, bishop of Jerusalem.
– Peter in Antioch.
-Also:
– Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus was ordained by the Apostle Paul.
– Dionysios the Arepagite, the first convert of St.Paul in Athens.
3) Where does the bible or the councils mention your thesis that
“…These bishops were succeeded by subsequent bishops …but this is not the same thing as succeeding the apostles”?
4) In other words you are not a full Christian because you were baptized by a modern priest and not by an Apostle himself?
5) Did you personally think of this or where did you read that:
“The bishops in a particular region have the canonical authority to establish churches and ordain men to the episcopate, but that authority is inherent in their own episcopate, not a matter of succeeding any apostle.”?
HOWEVER, I DO AGREE WITH YOU regarding Rome:
They wrongly want to prove that Peter was their first Bishop and then again wrongly use the word “petra” (=stone,rock) to show that they are the First. Of course, as also mentioned elsewhere, the “Rock” is the “Rock of Faith”, THAT is the foundation of the Church, not the human being Peter.
No, ‘Ioannis’, it is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself Who is the rock on which He builds His Church. Here’s an explanation of this which I wrote earlier. I hope you and others find it helpful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A recent reading from chapter 16 of St Matthew’s version of the gospel quoted our Lord Jesus Christ as telling His holy apostle Peter: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church….Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.’
But this is all wrong. This text’s literal and starched-stiff renderings into Latin and English and many other languages have frustrated Orthodox Christian theologians for thousands of years, and its misinterpretation gave rise to vaticanism.
So, please, let me offer some thoughts.
First, let’s all remember that this is a record of conversation going on in Aramaic (the native language of Matthew, Peter, and – most importantly — Jesus) but translated into Greek (however soon).
Generally, in the Greek scriptures, both Old and New testaments, Hebrew/Aramaic _vav_ is relentlessly rendered as _kai_ (‘and’). But the semitic word is much more flexible than the Greek one, although _kai_ is certainly capable of many more meanings than ‘and’. Altogether, when reading the scriptures, especially the New Testament, we must keep aware of a linguistic phenomenon known as ‘semitic interference’. This isn’t a bad thing, just a fact: people writing in a language not their own tend to think in their native language, and so translate their thoughts into other languages. It must occur to people that starting so many biblical verses with ‘and’ is a bit unusual for English. This is why the use of Greek by St Luke is a bit better than that of the other writers of the New Testament: he is the only gentile author among them and Greek was his native language.
Particularly as we think about MT 16:18-19, let’s also remember that ‘this’ refers to something closer to the speaker than ‘that’, which would be farther away from the speaker, describing things or even ideas. In this text, ‘this’ expects that Jesus is pointing to Himself, not to Peter (Kephas, Aramaic for ‘stone’), who is obviously farther away and would have to be referenced by something other than ‘this’ if he were the intended foundation being described by Jesus.
Finally, we must be aware that the phrases ‘will be bound’ and ‘will be loosed’ have been badly mistranslated into Latin (and usually from there into English) — and into any other languages affected by Roman Catholic ecclesiology — from the Greek text of the gospel, which is as close as we can yet be to an Urtext, in which these are future-perfect-passive-tense forms, a grammatical and theological point which St Jerome’s Latin uncharacteristically misses.
Although first-century Greek doesn’t have a fully formed passive periphrastic construction as does Latin of the same period, it’s obvious what meaning is intended when the Greek of that time sort of imitates the Latin. This grammatical construction clearly and unmistakably indicates a condition of necessity rather than of simple futurity.
Sequence-of-tenses protocols being what they are in indo-european languages, we have to wonder why MT 16 has the Greek present-tense forms ‘whatever you bind/loose’ followed by the future-perfect-passive forms ‘will have been bound’, and why this abrupt shift of tense isn’t reflected in either Latin or – more importantly for us – in English.
Well, as we all know, we’re always at the mercy of the translator when we can’t read and understand original texts ourselves. Personally, I don’t have that problem, God bless me, so I try to mediate the differences – not that I and my emendations are always well received, human nature and our ‘comfort zones’ being what they are.
Here, the Greek text of MT 16 says something like: ‘Whatever you bind/loose on Earth must have been bound in Heaven’ and ‘retain/restrict’, too.
So, with all that in mind, here’s my best rendering of MT 16:18-19:
‘I am saying that you are a stone, but it is upon THIS rock (gesturing toward Himself) that I will establish My Church, and even the gates of Haides will not overcome it. Still, I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. But whatever you bind on Earth must have been bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth must have been loosed in Heaven.’
Remembering all of the teaching of the Gospel and of St Paul (referencing the Psalms) that Christ Himself alone is the cornerstone and beginning of its foundation, His Apostles upon which The Church is built, and understanding all of the correct translations above, it becomes impossible for us to think that St Peter or even his profession of faith is The Rock, which is our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and no other.
No, “Monk James Silver” the “Rock” is NOT our difference. We agree there. Our differences are the 5 numbered points, and please address those!
Monk James, please add one more example to Question 2) at 2:58 am:
– The Apostle and evangelist Mark was the first bishop of Alexandria. Read Eusebius chapter XXIV.
St Mark was not one of the Lord’s twelve apostles, and neither was St James, the Lord’s brother, who became the first bishop of Jerusalem.
These saints are included among the Seventy Apostles, but were not of the Twelve.
I trust that the distinction is clear, and that my point remains valid.
Thank you for yr explanation as i have always had problem with Peter as the holder of the papal keys.
As i have with Christ forbidding divorce.
“Monk James Silver”,
I am sorry I have taken shortcuts and have not made myself absolutely clear:
I have been addressing the information relayed by Joseph:
QUOTE
Joseph Lipper says
May 2, 2019 at 9:23 am
….
Monk James points out that “apostolic succession” is not actually an Orthodox concept.
UNQUOTE
Joseph (correctly) does not mention the word “Twelve” since the important word is APOSTOLIC, not limited to the Twelve.
Okay, they started as the twelve as named, one betrayed, later on Mathias, Paul and the Seventy were added. So what, are you in the process of calculating which Apostle is worth what?
Apostolic means Apostolic, period.
The Apostles founded some Churches, but not ALL of them. The rest were founded by the never-ending sequence of Bishop.
Christ, or if you prefer the Holy Trinity, is the source then the Apostles and more and more Bishops up to the ages of ages.
So, PLEASE, let us talk about real substance, The APOSTOLIC, and also please consider my 5 numbered points as referring to ALL APOSTLES , not just the Twelve!
Trusting you will address the 5 points precisely.
It is not possible to consider the Twelve Apostles and the Seventy Apostles in exactly the same way, since The Tradition — following a distinction emplaced by our Lord Jesus Chri9st Himself — treats them as two different groups with different charisms.
Principal among these differences is that the Twelve never served as bishops of any place. They founded churches by appointing bishops, and moved on. St Paul himself writes that he intended to go on to Spain from Rome, but Nero had other ideas.
The Seventy, on the other hand, did indeed become bishops in some places, not only founding churches but remaining there to shepherd their flocks in the faith.
I don’t think that St. Paul was a founder of the church at Rome, either, inasmuch as he wrote a long letter to the already existing church there, before he ever visited it.
‘Tim R. Mortiss’ misunderstands what it means to ‘found a church’.
That there were Christian believers at Rome before Sts Peter and Paul arrived there is not in dispute, but they had no bishop (and hence no presbyters) until those two blessed apostles established a local church there when they appointed St Linus to serve as the first bishop of the capital city.
THAT was the founding of the church at Rome.
Then I do indeed misunderstand. But I have an open mind– is it indeed held that there was no church at Rome before Peter and Paul ‘founded’ it, as you say?
When did St. Peter go to Rome?.
Exactly. It’s not that just bartholomaios has behaviour badly, that is not unknown for all of them!! But he has behaved, this pillar of Orthodoxy, in a TOTALLY unorthodox way and invalid way, assuming the power to speak OVER the Church and as the Church. If the Church was with him, even but how could it ever be without leaving Orthodoxy??!!
If he had intervened and offered autocephaly to Onoufrios and he had accepted, it would have been VERY WRONG of them both, but it would have been a terrible bad action within Orthodoxy, of which are many.
But he gave, WITHOUT REPENTENCE, PSEUDO autocephaly to schismatics and self ordained, magically ticking their, sacramental list. Tell you what,I might give celebrating liturgy a try. ! Just need a nod from Bartholomaios. ANATHEMA ANATHEMA ANATHEMA
Wrong again, Joe. Antioch asked the CP to hear their appeal. The CP ignored them. It was not politically expedient for him. As a new crisis presented itself (the CP’s uncanonical intrusion into the jurisdiction of another Patriarchate), the other Patriarchs knew that they needed to restore unity in order to confront the newly created schism. And so, in brotherly love, by the power of the Holy Spirit, they restored communion. Now they can speak with one voice as they decide on a righteous course of action. Bartholomew’s man on the ground (Poroshenko) is gone…and the other Patriarchs have seen enough. The walls are closing in on Bartholomew.
Mikhail, thank you for your response. Christ Is Risen!
Indeed He is Risen!
It will be interesting to watch how phanariot pretensions collapse.
Some fora allow emojis – this would be the perfect place for the popcorn muncher.