There has been considerable back-and-forth on the blog with respect to the propriety of the Ecumenical Patriarch entering Ukraine.
At the bottom of this essay, I will expand on the issue via podcast. However, I’d like to begin with the exchange between two of our esteemed commentators, Brendan and Ioannis, and then follow up with research that Petros did on what the EP said in 2016, while at the Council of Crete.
****
Brendan:
Regarding the confusion as to the meaning of the word “ecumenical.” The Ecumenical Patriarch was so-called because he was the Bishop (Patriarch) of the οἶκος (household) of the Roman Emperor; ie: of Constantinople. He was not Patriarch of the inhabited world (nor even all the Roman Empire). But now that Constantinople is become Istanbul (and there is no Emperor) and the title has become little more than an interesting historical anomaly, the current Patriarch thereof is now trying to extend his area of jurisdiction to as much of the οἰκουμένη (inhabited Earth) as he can get away with. It is the Ecclesiastical equivalent of what happened in England in 1066 when Duke William the Bastard and his thirty thousand thieves stole the entire country and claimed it as his God-given inheritance.
Strong’s Concordance
‘ oikoumené: the inhabited earth
Original Word: οἰκουμένη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: oikoumené
Phonetic Spelling: (oy-kou-men’-ay)
Definition: the inhabited earth
Usage: (properly: the land that is being inhabited, the land in a state of habitation), the inhabited world, that is, the Roman world, for all outside it was regarded as of no account.There is however, a secondary meaning, for the source of which see:
Strong’s Concordance
‘ oikos: a house, a dwelling
Original Word: οἶκος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: oikos
Phonetic Spelling: (oy’-kos)
Definition: a house, a dwelling
Usage: … (b) a household, family, lineage, nation.
****
Ioannis: Well said, Brendan! If I may add a few words: Oikou+mene comes from the words
Οἰκου+μένη i.e.
House+suffix for past participle, or
Dweling+suffix etc, ie
Hous+ed (land or area) or
Dwell+ed (land or area)
say, inhabited.The Rudder (Pedalion, Πηδάλιον) p.275,
English translation by D.Cummings 1957.
has an explanation about the word “Ecumenical”“… designations conferred, not by any Canons…but given by custom…”
From the whole interpretation pp.271-276, Bartholomew may not consider the title as Canonical or dogmatic but simply a custom at the time that his city was the capital of the Christian world. His city, Constantinople was then the capital and the residence of the Head of State. The city’s Bishop was a kind of coordinator to assist remote bishops who wanted to see the emperor and ask for specific aid. Istanbul now 1) is not the residence of the Head of State, that is in Ankara and 2) the Turkish President does not give aid to the remote bishops e.g. from Greece, USA, Russia, Romania etc.
https://archive.org/details/rudderpedalionof0000orth/page/n9/mode/2up
****
In the interest of shedding even more light on the subject, I present you Canon 28 and what it states with respect to the Ecumenical Patriarch entering a territory outside his own. I hope you find it edifying.
Part I:
[Ed. note: It’s been awhile since I’ve done a podcast and I felt that it was high time to do so. At min 12:30 of Part I, I misspoke: instead of “St Peter” I should have said “Sts Cyprian and Ignatius”.]
And finally, a special thank you to Petros for going through the archives of Romfea.gr and providing a summary of what the EP stated at Crete in 2016 with respect to Ukraine. Lest we forget, the overriding consensus among the bishops was that Ukraine belonged to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church.
The Ecumenical Patriarch, who repeatedly emphasized the special relationship that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has with the Church of Constantinople, acknowledges Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon:
Expressing the position that the Church of Russia has canonical rights over Ukraine
Recognizing Metropolitan Onufrios as the canonical Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Ukraine under the Moscow Patriarchate
Condemning the schismatics under deposed clergy
Rejecting the ordination of the high priesthood of all the priests and [hierarchs] under the deposed clergy
Promising not to grant autocephaly or legitimize the schismatics in any way
Stating that the schism and the priesthood of certain [hierarchs] can only be restored in cooperation with the Church of Russia
Can’t get much more categorical than that? Eh? So, I also talk a little about papal supremacy and how it didn’t exist in the first Millennium. (More to come at a later date.)
Part II:
Excellent historical analysis, George. I greatly enjoyed it.
All I would add to it is that Cannon XVII of Chalcedon
set a 30 year limit for the contest of peacable possession
of another Church by anyone; under the terms of which
Constantinople has no valid claim over Kiev whatsoever.
Thank you. I hope it wasn’t boring (history often is). Anyway, tried to keep them both on the shortish side; with a script with talking points, I avoided repeating myself as well as stammering.
Anyway, I have some more podcasts coming up, which I’m doing because sometimes, that’s the only way I can seem to crystallize my thoughts on a multi-layer basis. (My next one will be on The Sound of Freedom.)
In the meantime, today is the 105th anniversary of the martyrdom of the Imperial Family. Please take the time to read this brilliant essay by Fr Zacharias Lynch:
https://inklesspen.blog/2018/07/20/the-cosmic-significance-of-tsar-nicholas-ii/
Holy Royal Martyrs of Russia, pray for us! (We really, really need your help!)
Thanks, George! I enjoyed listening to this on my morning commute! Learned a lot that I had no clue about. Great topic!
You’re very welcome!
George, consider that the phrase “first among equals” doesn’t actually exist in canon law. Sure, we can rightly say that all bishops have apostolic succession, and in council all bishops have one vote. However, the idea that “all bishops are equal” doesn’t have any real basis beyond this.
Every bishop has distinct prerogatives, whether it be as an auxiliary bishop, a diocesan bishop, an archdiocesan bishop, or as the primate of a local church. We can see that among hierarchs, there also exists a hierarchy. There is a hierarchy of seniority, and also of honor and privilege. We can observe that a diocesan bishop has the unequaled right to call diocesan councils, to preside over those diocesan councils, and to speak on behalf of that diocese. An auxiliary bishop wouldn’t have that right and privilege unless it was given to him on behalf of the diocesan bishop. The primate of a local church (we might think of the example of the OCA’s Metropolitan Tikhon here) also has the unequaled right to call a council of the bishops of that local church, to preside in that synod of bishops, and to speak on behalf of that synod. So for example, Metropolitan Tikhon can call an OCA Holy Synod meeting, and he will preside in that synod. That’s something the other bishops don’t have the right to do. However, Metropolitan Tikhon wouldn’t have the right to call a diocesan council for the OCA’s Diocese of the South, because that would be Archbishop Alexander’s unequaled right and privilege.
The recent Alexandria Document on “Synodality and Primacy in the Second Millennium and Today” is useful here:
“The Church is not properly understood as a pyramid, with a primate governing from the top, but neither is it properly understood as a federation of self-sufficient Churches. Our historical study of synodality and primacy in the second millennium has shown the inadequacy of both of these views. Similarly, it is clear that for Roman Catholics synodality is not merely consultative, and for Orthodox primacy is not merely honorific.”
http://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/document-d-alexandrie—synodalite-et-primaute-au-deuxieme-mille.html
This how Bartholomeus sees the Church, this priest is excellent reflection of him. And this is why he is enforcing ecumenism that has nothing to do with Orthodox Church.
https://spzh.news/en/news/74933-ocu-cleric-discards-sergius-of-radonezh-because-of-uocs-fuzzy-position
These stoopid schismatics don’t realize that by defaming some of God’s pleasing saints, they are heaping up bowls of condemnation upon themselves.
In a similar vein…
From holy hierarch to liar: Filaret’s
image evolution as viewed by OCU
https://spzh.news/en/zashhita-very/62728-ot-svyatitelya-do-lzheca-kak-u-patriotov-pcu-menyalsya-obraz-filareta
‘ … Among believers, it is generally accepted that church hierarchs are more immune from sin than ordinary laymen. However, the examples of the former Metropolitan of Kiev, the current patriarch of Constantinople, and, moreover, breakaway groups of people who call themselves “priests” and bishops of the OCU, prove the opposite.
We are used to the fact that only the lives of ascetics, saints and venerables can be edificatory. However, sometimes a glance at opposite cases can bring no less benefit. The main thing is not to be sure that this cannot happen to us. ‘
So true, Brendan. – We don’t want to destroy the Church in our attempt to save it.
Great videos George, keep ’em coming! Always cool when you and Gail do those.
As for the EP, just like old Rome who used forgeries to prop itself up politically, the EP is using “mental” forgeries to jump through hoops to prop itself up as the “pope of Orthodoxy” & “first without equals” by conveniently re-interpreting ancient canons…ironically while totally ignoring other canons like praying with heretics and schismatics. The EP is in a very precarious situation and has found the need to align itself with Western powers in order to survive and to save “Hellenism.”
Ironically in doing so, not only has it almost completely diminished it’s powers to being something of a “nothing burger” in Orthodoxy, it has also done more to destroy Hellenism than the Turks could have ever hoped for.
“If liberals didn’t have double standards they would have no standards at all”
As for the OCU, we had better hope that Russia does it’s job or the OCU will make sure it snuffs out whatever is left of the UOC. Recently even the head of the UGCC has said the Uniates will have access to the lavra.
Good insight.
Petros, thanks for these insights! I’m presently writing something about the Tradcats’ devotion to the Papacy. I forgot to mention that the first whisperings about papal supremacy (not primacy) were based on medieval forgeries. The Donation of Constantine being first and foremost.
And now, the Phanar is following in this fraudulent trail as well, with the Canon 28/primus sine paribus hoax.
George, wanted to point out something that is a little off topic but still somewhat related.
It is no coincident that the RCC is getting ready to have a “Synod on Synodality” coming up this Fall and again next year. It’s also no coincidence that the recent RC-OC meeting in Egypt produced the “Alexandrian Document” that essentially said the Orthodox Church has been right the entire time.
All of this is paving the way for 2025.
If the Orthodox Church falls for this (which all of it wont) then we will essentially function as the Uniates to do now where we are allowed to keep our structure, beliefs, saints, all while being in communion with RCism
George, the order and sequence of steps involved with the creation of the OCU are important also.
The rescinding of the Act of 1686 by the Holy Synod of the EP in October 2018 intentionally removed Moscow’s guardianship over Kiev and Ukraine. (Of course Moscow wants to say the 1686 act was not rescindable, but the EP insists that it always was.)
From the EP’s viewpoint, Ukraine then became a resubordinate territory. It is this resubordination that allowed for the EP to canonically reverse the clerical depositions made by the previous guardian, the Moscow Patriarchate, and to restore the formerly schismatic bishops in Ukraine.
The resubordination of Ukraine also allowed for the EP to call a council. All the bishops of Ukraine were in fact invited to this council. Unfortunately, many (actually most) bishops did not show up, and they now suffer as a result.
However, those present at the council nonetheless requested autocephaly. So from the point of view of the EP, the canonical church in Ukraine did in fact request autocephaly. The EP also points out that in 1991, all the canonical bishops in Ukraine, in a signed document, requested autocephaly from their former guardian, the Moscow Patriarchate.
Of course the autocephaly that the EP granted Ukraine is controversial, and the EP freely admits this. Patriarch Bartholomew hasn’t required or threatened anyone to recognize it. In this way, it is similar to the controversial autocephaly that Russia granted to the Orthodox Church in America, or the recent autocephaly that Serbia granted to North Macedonia. It is considered to be purely an administrative matter of the mother church until an Ecumenical Council makes a final decision.
No they don’t, Joseph. Far from it. Neither you nor I have to be captive to the Phanariotes’ hallucinatory misunderstanding of history.
Since you err in your first premise, everything else that follows is moot.
Please go watch the video I made about this. I did it specifically to address your concerns and to set the record straight. In it I prove from historical records that the 1686 tomos was not “rescindable” contrary to their fantasies. I even prove it by quoting the syntagmatia of the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself.
Indeed, no fewer than two Ecumenical Patriarchs –Jeremiah II and Dionysios IV–stated that Kiev belonged to Moscow. Both men also said that Moscow was the Third Rome. (Again, for those who want to challenge me, I provide the sources for that.)
If you take the time to watch it, I will explain to you what “syntagmatia” are as well. I will also point out that the EP and his spokesman flat-out said that “Ukraine was off the table” back in 2016. I even posted the YouTube video in which Fr Alex Karloutsos said that on this blog. Unfortunately, it has since gone to “Error 404” land.
Anyway, if, after watching it, you want to correct or comment on my research, I will be more than happy to post your comments. Otherwise, as far as the historical record is concerned, the matter is closed.
Please note, I too, years ago believed as you do so I mean no disrespect. However, after delving into literally dozens of books on the subject of Byzantine, Balkan, and Russian history, there was no proof whatsoever of these fabulous claims.
That said, I have no illusions that the EP and his partisans are going to desist from believing in fantasies. That however, is their problem, not mine.
Forbye all the foregoing, as if that were not enough,
the elephant in the room to flatten all Phanariot claims
is Canon XVII of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon;
under the terms of which Constantinople’s claim to Kiev
expired more than thirty years (actually two centuries) ago,
during which time Moscow has enjoyed peaceable possession.
Hence the question to be answered is:
Does Constantinople accept or reject
the decision of the Ecumenical Council;
which decision was taken for the purpose
of maintaining peace within the Church?
George, I think we both agree that the key to the current Ukraine crisis is whether or not the Act of 1686 could be revoked. If indeed it could be, then it follows that everything else the EP has done in Ukraine has proceeded canonically as it should. Yet if it couldn’t be revoked, then it would follow that everything the EP has done in Ukraine since then would be non-canonical and an abomination.
The troubling event that preceded the 1686 Act in question was the non-canonical ordination of Metropolitan Gedeon of Kiev in 1685 at the Kremlin by Patriarch Joachim of Moscow. Of course it was non-canonical, because it was done without any consent from the EP. A damning letter of rebuke from the Patriarch of Jerusalem was sent to Patriarch Joachim about this:
“But you wanted a foreign eparchy! It would have been possible for you to remain the Constantinople patriarch’s representative to the metropolitan of Kyiv. You claim it was necessary that you also ordain the metropolitan of Kyiv, but we think that there was no necessity, only avarice. And why should the limits of the Fathers be exceeded without just reason? Doing this, without any need, but instead in order to satisfy only your ambitions and not to advance the common good, you are doing damaging both to yourself and the Church.”
https://orthodoxia.info/news/historic-letter-jerusalem-patriarch-had-once-rebuked-moscow-patriarch-over-kyiv/
In actuality, it was the Russian Tsar Ivan V who wanted the Metropolitanate of Kiev to be subordinate to Moscow, and the weak Patriarch Joachim was only willing to comply.
Naturally, the Moscow Patriarch then sought to retroactively amend his grievous canonical transgression by writing to the EP and asking for permission to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev. It is important to note that in his letter to the EP, he seeks to justify his request by clearly stating that ‘not wanting to take the eparchy [of Kiev] into our possession, but seeking a fraternal union in Christ”.
https://spzh.news/en/zashhita-very/57204-ta-samaja-gramota-tak-peredaval-li-konstantinopoly-cerkovy-ukrainy-moskve
The wording here is important. A fraternal brotherly union is clearly different than a paternal one. The Patriarch of Moscow was not asking for a paternal union, that is to be the Patriarch of Kiev, but rather a fraternal union, that is to serve as Kiev’s big brother and as the guardian who would henceforth ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev on behalf of Constantinople.
The reply that came from the EP, known as the 1686 Act, fulfilled this request. There was an unusual condition, however, that the Metropolitan of Kiev would always commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople first when serving Divine Liturgy, and only afterwards would the Patriarch of Moscow be commemorated. This unusual and glaring condition was not objected to by Moscow, and NOT EVEN WITHIN THIRTY YEARS AFTER THE FACT! Why? Since it was only guardianship of the Kiev Metropolis that was requested by Patriarch Joachim of Moscow, it was therefore a satisfactory condition that only guardianship was granted by the EP.
The actual territory of the Kiev Metropolis was therefore never ceded to Moscow, but rather only a guardianship over it, and such guardianship can be taken away.
Yes, it is quite likely that all the EP’s subsequent “syntagmatia” and references to the Kiev Metropolis expressed it as being the canonical jurisdiction of Moscow. What this means in view of the Act of 1686, however, is that the EP viewed Kiev as being under the guardianship of Moscow. It is like delegating a middle manager over someone. If there’s a problem, the upper management lets the middle management deal with it. Problem with Ukraine? Talk to Moscow. That is, until one day the upper management suddenly fires the middle manager. In 2018, that’s what eventually happened in Ukraine.
Canon 17 of Chalcedon states: “Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. …And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.”
Canon 38 of Trullo states: “The canon which was made by the Fathers we also observe; which thus decreed: If any city be renewed by imperial authority, or shall have been renewed, let the order of things ecclesiastical follow the civil and public order.”
The ecclesiastical order in the province of Kiev,
having been destroyed by wars and schisms,
was renewed under the Empress Catherine II;
and, in following “the civil and public order”,
was counted a province of the Russian Church
for over two centuries without any challenge
by Constantinople, which thereby lost all right.
And if you want an even tighter legal opinion,
Canon CXIX of the Council of Carthage states:
” That if a bishop shall possess a diocese which he has snatched
from heresy for three years, no one may take it from him.
Item, it seemed good that if anyone after the laws should convert any place to Catholic unity and retain it for three years without opposition, it should not be taken away from him afterwards. If however there was during those three years a bishop who could claim it and was silent, he shall lose the opportunity. … “
Brendan, we are seeing these concepts act out in real time. The Russian Federation is annexing territories of Ukraine, and dioceses that were formerly under Metropolitan Onuphry are now directly under Patriarch Kirill. These were not freely handed over by Metropolitan Onuphry either. Their previous agreement, for example, was that Crimea would remain with the UOC. That agreement has now been completely ignored by the ROC.
Joseph, having so noticeably ignored the argument
that the Councils of Chalcedon, Trullo and Carthage
have so completely overthrown the legal validity
of any current claims of Constantinople to Ukraine,
your silence attests to the truth of that argument.
That said, I now turn to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church,
a canonical Church in the process of being dismembered;
which dismemberment was begun by Patriarch Bartholomew,
acting (it would seem) as an agent of the US State Department
and in furtherance of his own neo-papal delusions of grandeur.
There, politics aside, lies the root of the current religious chaos.
Brendan, as I understand it, the parishes of the former “Kievan Patriarchate” and the UAOC remained with their bishops, it’s just that their bishops went into schism. So I don’t see how canon 17 of Chalcedon would apply. In fact, it might even be said that those schismatic bishops were actually applying that canon, along with canon 38 from Trullo, to make the ecclesial order follow the local political order of Ukrainian independence.
The fact is that the Russian Church has not been able to reconcile with either of these schismatic groups for almost thirty years, and now with the creation of the OCU it has been over thirty years.
The EP has also never questioned the guardianship of Kiev when it was politically subservient to Moscow. It was only when Ukraine became independent, and really when Russia annexed Crimea, that the EP began to consider revoking their 1686 patriarchal act.
Joseph, one can’t honestly expect a canonical church to “reconcile” with self-ordained charlatans.
Let’s be serious.
George, there was only one self-ordained charlatan, Vikenti Chekalin. He was posing as a ROCOR bishop. Before he was found out to be a charlatan, he was invited to participate in the ordination of a UAOC bishop, Basil Bodnarchuk.
Because of the fraud, it turns out that only one actual UAOC bishop did the ordination of Basil Bodnarchuk. So, this was considered to be a non-canonical example of one bishop ordaining another bishop, when at least two are required by canon. This was also widely known as the main reason why the “Kievan Patriarchate” was not in communion with the UAOC. The “Kievan Patriarchate” was scrupulous in following the exact same rubrics as Moscow in hopes of an eventual reconciliation.
After the EP reversed the schismatic status of the UAOC (and the KP), next was the decision to retroactively accept that apostolic succession was preserved in the irregular ordination of Basil Bodnarchuk, even though only one bishop was involved in ordaining him. While that’s not canonical practice, the EP has nonetheless provided some other accepted historical examples within the Orthodox Church. Fundamentally, that ordination was accepted for reasons of economia, and it was the only incident of consequence in the UAOC where only one bishop ordained another bishop.
Enough of your ‘down-the-rabbithole’ diversions.
Yet again, despite being bearded with the facts,
that Constantinople has no valid claim to Ukraine,
you slide past the point into complete non-sequiturs.
Well, I will bandy no more words with you on this.
The case is made. The only question that remains is:
Will the bishops have the courage to act upon it?
Brendan, as I have pointed out before, instances of Kiev being politically subservient to Russia (even for hundreds of years) did not contradict the EP’s appointment of Moscow as ecclesial guardian over Kiev. It doesn’t contradict the canons you mention either.
It is only later, after the Soviet Union grants independence to Ukraine, and when the Russia Federation annexes Crimea, that the EP decides that Moscow is no longer fit to be the ecclesial guardian over Kiev.
With an independent Ukraine, the 1686 act had become a source of schism. Revoking the 1686 act was meant to restore the ecclesial order to match the political order of independence.
Document Adopted by the Bishops Conference
of the Russian Orthodox Church 19 July 2023
https://www.monomakhos.com/41764-2/
7. Unilateral revision by the Patriarchate of
Constantinople of acts of legal significance
‘ While laying claim to its alleged special powers in the Orthodox world, the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not hesitate to unilaterally revise historical acts that have legal significance in relation to the Local Orthodox Churches and their canonical boundaries. Such an approach is in conflict with the canonical Tradition of the Church, violating, in particular, Canon 129 (133) of Carthage and Canon 17 of the IV Ecumenical Council. These rules do not allow for the possibility of revising the established church boundaries, which were previously uncontested for a long time. ‘
I am now out of this conversation.
Brendan, the statement from this recent Bishop’s conference doesn’t say anything different than the ROC’s 2018 statement of their Holy Synod, even quoting those same canons you provide:
http://www.patriarchia.ru/en/db/text/5283716.html
Sure, if the 1686 act couldn’t be revoked, then the EP would be in violation of those canons, but simply bringing up those canons just begs the question.
Meanwhile, we have just seen the ROC taking over the jurisdiction of Metropolitan Onuphry in Crimea without his consent. So the ROC is actually violating the canons you provide.
Not sure what you meant by this, but the date 2023 is all over it so it’s not the same.
Gail, the 2023 document is reiterating much the same arguments that the 2018 document made against the EP.
My point is it isn’t the same document. Stuff has been added to it.
Joseph, according to Cpole’s own language in the 1686 Tomos, the transfer was permanent.
We need to stop playing phanariote gaymes. It’s unworthy of men.
Manliness is characterized by doing the harder right instead of the easier wrong. It would have been a lot easier for the EP to have done nothing in Ukraine. Overturning the 1686 act has only given the EP insult and injury, but they have nonetheless been steadfast in their resolve for conscience’s sake.
The appointment of Moscow’s guardianship over Kiev was indefinite. The word the EP used in 1686 was “henceforth”: “Let the Metropolitan of Kiev henceforth be subordinate to the holy patriarchal Moscow throne”. It’s an open-ended wording.
Joseph, that’s sophistry. Nothing about the present EP speaks of “manliness” in the sense of wanting to do that which is right instead of that which is easy. Looked at another way, tyrants throughout history have used that same excuse to do expedient (if not downright evil) things.
That is one sign of manliness, yes, Joseph. Another sign of manliness is the humility to admit it when you are wrong, and to admit it publicly.
Josesh, you correctly identify the problem in your first paragraph. It is the second sentence specifically which defines the historical reality. I especially take umbrage with your idea that the tomos of transfer was “conditional”. It was not. Had you listened to my podcast you would have heard me cite the actual sources. (I will do so soon. I really want to put this issue to rest, for the same reason that I don’t believe in the Flat Earth theory: there’s no reason to try and argue against an absurdity.)
As to the rest that follows, is a type of special pleading. Partisans of the OCA could easily say that everything the EP did in North America is invalid because everything those men too (the Patriarchs of Cpole) did was under duress. In fact, the entire history of the EP post-1453 is invalid by your reasoning –and for the same reason.
BTW, when the Greek immigrants started building parishes about 120 years ago, the EP said that they belonged to the Church of Greece, not Cpole! He did this under duress because the Turkish Sultan demanded that he do so. It was only later, when the Arb of the Church of Greece, Meletios Metaxakis showed up in America, exiled as he was by the Greek govt, and then elected Patriarch of Cpole, that he decided to transfer the jurisdiction of the Greek-American parishes over to Cpole.
Very self-serving.
George, I wanted to also address your comment about Patriarch Jeremiah II. He personally gave autocephaly to Moscow, or really legitimatized it, by placing the patriarchal miter on the head of the Moscow’s first patriarch. There was no consensus among the other autocephalous churches about this at the time. In fact, they later protested about it, but finally agreed that Moscow would be fifth in the diptychs.
Of course, Tsar Ivan V wanted Moscow to be first in the diptychs, and was even led to believe that it would be. It should follow that if Moscow was indeed the third Rome, then it would be first, or at least second after Constantinople.
However, that was not the case.
After Patriarch Jeremiah II left Moscow, he went to Kiev and ordained the Metropolitan there. Kiev was not under the guardianship of Moscow at that time, but directly under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
BTW, some of the sources for my podcast were from Being As Communion (Zizioulas); Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit (St Photius the Great), The Challenges of Our Past (Erickson), The Great Church in Captivity (Runciman), and Byzantium and the Slavs (Obolelnsky).
A telling and accurate quote from ByzTX:
Same reason why he won’t be removed as Archbishop.
Looks like all that pandering to the government of Turkey has done no good.
You gotta figure there’s a political aspect to this.