www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Situation of Patriarchates

I wish to start a new topic to build up on the comment that Alex made of a Ukranian Patriarchate in another thread.

If we can imagine for a moment a full reconciliation between all Orthodox Churches and Rome, would anyone be favorable to the idea that most particular Churches be headed by no one less than a Patriarch?

Do you think synthesis of particular Churches may be possible?

What I'm very keen on delving into is the issue of the Oecuminical Patriarch. As that Patriarchate is the first in dignity after Rome, shall it still remain a shadow of its former self? Should not Greece at least be under its jurisdiction? I'm afraid that the full thrust towards autonomy and autochephaous Churches before and after the fall of Constantinople has dismantled and fragmented much of what used to be territory under the Patriarch's jurisdiction.

Aside from the Serbs, and perhaps the Bulgarians, which of the present Eastern European Orthodox Churches (ie. autocephalous Patriarchates) broke off and came into existance close to or after the fall of Constantinople?

I hope I'm not giving the impression that Churches should be swallowed up by or submit to the hegemony of Constantinople, but I'm wondering whether some kind of de-fragmentizing of Churches is plausible, as Orthodoxy is full of independent Churches due to strong nationalist ties (didn't a fraction of the Serbian Church split off only recently and declare itself a Macedonian Orthodox Church?)

In IC XC
Samer



[This message has been edited by SamB (edited 04-20-2001).]

All counterparting jurisdictions would come together; Melkites and Antiochian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Catholics, Serbian Orthodox and Serbian Catholic, Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholic.

As long as the two patriarchs/archbishops were still alive, they would "co-rule" the eparchy--this has happened before in history-- and on the first's death, he would become the sole patriarch.

The ancient principle of one bishop's territory per city cannot and in my opinion SHOULD NOT be restored. Instead, each ritual would have a jurisdiction--all Byzantines in America, whether greek, serb, rusyn, whatever would be in one jurisdiction, with each parish choosing its identity (ie what tones to use, what language predominates), there would be a Roman hierarchy, a Coptic, etc. This is necessary because we cannot return to a time when all people in one territory were essentially the same rite, with perhaps one church of another rite existing (ie a Latin church in Constaninople) under the jurisdiction of that city. Each rite should have its own hierarchy to keep the rites from "mixing" and also to ensure each group is represented by those who understand it. Also--could you imagine a Bishop in New York City having to make pastoral visits to all parishes in the area, and having to do all those different liturgies? :-)

anastasios

Let me just say,that if folks want to offer various possibilties or potential options for the future as a way of envisioning reunion, they are doing God's work.

If anyone is limiting the freedom of the Church by saying it must be this way or that way, you are opposing ecumenism.

For most of us, the answer is, we will cross that bridge when we come to it with no preconditions.

K.

Hi Folks,

The way I understand what Ecumencial Patriarches are:

There are 4 Ecumencial Patriarches (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople). Each of them is the Head of each juri iris Churches (Rome is of Roman/Latin; Alexandria is of Coptic/Ethiopian; Antioch is of Syrian/Melkite/Maronite/etc.; Constantinople is of Byzantine).

Then there is a different type of Patriarch, which is head of a National/Ethnic Church. For example, Patriarch of Russia is head of Russian Byzantine Church, but is under Ecumencial Patriarch of Constaninople (Byzantine).

Metropolitan is like a Patriarch of a National Church except isn't really a Patriarch. For example. Metropolitan of a Russian Orthodox Church in United State, he is the head of this National/Ethnic Church that is outside of the home country (Russia), but still is under Ecumencial Patriarch of Constantinople.

That's how I understand it. If the Catholic and Orthodox Church was to UNITE, then all Byzantine Catholics would go to Ecumencial Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of this Byzantine Church (suri iris). It would be Patriarch Bartholomew I (SP?).

That's just how I see the structure of the Church.

The Pope of Rome having more than one role, as being Patriarch of Roman Church and Universal Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church (Sumpreme Pontiff). You see, the Catholic Church is ONE Church with communion of all different suri iris churches), and it would make sense for him to be the Pastor of One Church just as there is one pastor of a parish church.

Except there's a problem when the roles of Sumpreme Pontiff and Patriarch of Rome kind of mix together. That's where I think the Orthodox would have a problem with it because he would impose universal Church teachings BASED on Roman ideas. I think John Paul II is looking for help from the Orthodox to help him re-define the role of papacy, perhaps by showing where the line is and where to draw it. Otherwise, the true Sumpreme Pontiff (with no influence of Patriarch of Rome's ideas) is actually First Among Equals exactly the way the Orthodox see it. I think it'd solve the problem if the roles of Pontiff and Patriarch of Rome is to be SEPARATED. I'm sure John Paul II would welcome that. But has any Orthodox helped him yet on re-definition of papacy? NOT! So, then I partially blame the Orthodox for their lack of efforts to work on their part to Church unity.

Good day.

Shane



[This message has been edited by spdundas (edited 04-21-2001).]

>Metropolitan is like a Patriarch of a National Church except isn't really a Patriarch. For example. Metropolitan of a Russian Orthodox Church in United State, he is the head of this National/Ethnic Church that is outside of the home country (Russia), but still is under Ecumencial Patriarch of Constantinople.<

Has anybody reminded him of this recently?

>>>Has anybody reminded him of this recently?<<<

Indeed, the Orthodox Church of America is an autocephalous; i.e., self-governing Church that does not answer to any Patriarch. In contrast, an autonomous metropolitan Church is only locally self-governing, and is under the authority of a patriarch. Examples would include the Ukrainian Autonomous Metropolitan Church/Moscow Patriarchate; the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown; and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in America/Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Stuart is correct in stating that the OCA is autocephalous (completly self governing) while the Johnstown Diocese (Carpatho-Rusyn) and South Bound Brook (Ukrainian Metropolia) jurisdictions are under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. However, both have their own internal means of governing as does the Greek Archdiocese (which has its own constitution).

Having said that, the North American situation in Orthodoxy is totally irregular (from a canonical perspective). The canons of the Church (which also are the same Councils for the Roman Catholic Church)are very clear about one bishop per city. St. Ignatios of Antioch clearly teaches that where the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.

American Orthodox will have an extraordinary SCOBA meeting coming up. I pray that we will soon have our AOC (American Orthodox Church). Of course, this will include every right in full communion (as the Western Rite Parishes are integral communities of the Antiochian Archdiocese). The thing that seems hardest for Catholics to perceive is that the Undivided Church was territorial (canonically correct)and not ritual. History will not let us forget that 1054 was about (at least on the surface) this very issue, Byzantine practices in the Roman Patriarchate (are married priests bearded fornicators and the Filioque) and the closing of the Latin Rite parishes in the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. Certainly this was Patriarch Michael's right (despite the arguements about that decision's wisdom).

Indeed, all monastics on Mt.Athos are under Constantinople regardless of whether they are Greeks in Esphigmenou, Serbs in Chilandari, Bulgarians in Zographou or Russians in Hagios Panteleimenos. If the Latin Rite monastery were to be repopulated by some of the Western Rite Orthodox from NA, it too would again be under Constantinople (and not Antioch, as are the parishes). Within a Patriarchate, all Orthodox Christians belong to that Patriarchate (regardless of Rite or ethnic origin).

Christ Is Risen!
Truly He Is Risen!

Three Cents

Three cents is correct both in the traditional canonical understanding of thismatter and the current Orthodox practice. However, it should be noted that since 1054, Orthodoxy has become in fact and theory monoritual, the small and unresolved issues of WRV parishes exclusively in the US and UK and exclusively practiced by the Antiochean jurisdiction. Catholicism, in theory and in limited practice multi-ritual, obsviously is in a different pastoral situation so utilizes different practices.

Regardless, canons of many centuries ago do not restrict the Church from doing what is best in the present day.

K.

I repeat my assertion that in a reunited church, all Byzantines should be under one jurisdiction, all Romans under another, all Armenians, etc.

i don't believe in going back to "one bishop per city" in the sense of all rites under one bishop--it would be pastorally impossible in America, at least.

But having more than one structure for Byzantines is problematic.

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

You are right, friend. Spiritual culture has a lot to do with this, melting potism notwithstanding.

Alex

Alex,


Christ is Risen!


An outsider-looking-in question:

During 30+ yrs. of association with a typical Greek Orthodox (American) parish, I can say I saw little evidence at all of interest in reunion with the Holy See of Rome.

Reunion IS an issue for Greek theologians to discuss. But at the grass roots, it is a non-issue among American Greeks.


The same can be said for the Church in Greece, except the Greek parish clergy are very opposed to reunion.


Among the Greeks, only the Ecumenical Patriarchate seems to have a genuine interest in pursuing the "discussion."


It seems that the Bulgarians, Macedonians, and Serbs are also indifferent to Roman overtures. I say "seems," but what is your opinion?


Truly He is Risen!

[ For example, Patriarch of Russia is head of Russian Byzantine Church, but is under Ecumencial Patriarch of Constaninople (Byzantine).]

Wrong! The Patriarch of Moscow is the head of an autocephalous Orthodox Church. As such, he is the highest Hierach within that Church. He is not 'Under' any other Hierach including the Patriarch of Constantinople (which is also an autocephalous Church. He is the head and leader of a completely self governing Orthodox Church.

Within Orthodoxy there are two types of Churches. Those that are 'autocephalous' and those that are 'automonous'. Difference between the two is -

From 'A Dictionary of Orthodox Termonology' -

Autocephalous. (Gr. "appointing its own leader"). The status of an Orthodox church which is self-governed and
also has the authority to elect or appoint its own leader or head (cephale).

Autonomy. (Gr. "self-rule"). The status of an Orthodox Church that is self-ruled. An autonomous church is
governed by its prelate, who is chosen by a superior jurisdiction, usually by a patriarchate).

The difference between an (1) 'autocephalous' and an (2)'automonous' church is that the first gets to chose it's own Hierach and make it's own Holy Chrism'. While the second may elect it's own head who must be approved by it's 'mother church' before that Hierach can be consecrated. And who receives it's 'Holy Chrism' from it's mother church.

Example: The canonical Orthodox church in Russia is autocephalous while the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine is automonous.

Bob

Bob's points are well taken. The situation of the Eastern Catholics is probably best described, in Orthodox terms, as "tight autonomy": Rome approves the episcopal selections. Rome does not supply the chrism, but this is not even done in the Roman Church worldwide -- chrism is consecrated locally in the Roman Church, so allowing the Eastern Catholics to do so is simply a parallel to the Roman practice. I think it's "tight" autonomy, however, because the level of direction/regulation undertaken by Rome vis-a-vis these Churches outstrips that taken by Orthodoxy for most autonomous Orthodox Churches.

Brendan

Dear Bob and Brendan,

You already know where I am coming from here and you might even forgive me for saying this.

The "canonical Orthodox Church in Ukaine" is simply the Moscow Patriarchate in Kyiv under a different name.

Autonomy shmautonomy, Metropolitan Vladimir takes his orders from his boss in Moscow.

Forgive me my bias . . .

Alex

[Autonomy shmautonomy, Metropolitan Vladimir takes his orders from his boss in Moscow.]

Not any more the the Leader of the Ukrainian Catholic Church takes his orders from Rome.