www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News MP diocese in UK to join EP?

Thanks for your comments. I see the importance of the distinction of the administrator versus episcopal position. But I remain interested in learning about the general nature of the authority that the ranking hierarch - patriarch, metropolitan, etc. - has over other Bishops in the various Orhtodox jurisdictions.

Dear DJS,

I can offer how it works from the Greek side. Generally the rank of bishop is given to an auxilary subject to a Metropolitan or Archbishop for duties and where he would perform his ministry. In the Greek system, the Archbishop is of higher rank. The metropolitan is a full diocesan bishop that is a member of a synod, as in the case in the US a member of the Eparchial Synod. The Archbishop is the head of the Eparchial Synod in America and is also a member of the Holy Synod of Constantinople. This change to allow him to be a member of that synod has only occurred in the last few years. He has full voting rights and that synod and does participate in the synods deliberations fully. He also brings whatever deliberations from the Eparchial synod to the one in Constantinople for ratification.

As far as the Patriarchate of Constantinople goes, it also has a number of other dioceses that are governed by hierarchs that are elected by the Holy Synod. One case would be the Carpatho Russian Diocese here in America. Metropolitan Nicholas administers and is autonomous in the governance of his diocese, but still could be by see title be considered an auxilary of the Archbishop of America. His see title is Amissos, though he functions as a regular bishop and only reports on the state of affairs of his diocese to the exarch, the Greek Archbishop of America. He does not have to seek approval in the functions of his ministry or the ordination of the clergy. Such would apply in regards to the Russian Archdiocese of Western Europe.

I hope this helps you a little.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

It's a little different in the Russian Church. Basically the Russian version of Archbishop vs Metropolitan is reversed of that of the Greek Church, with the Metropolitan being of "higher rank" if you will, than the Archbishop. In both the Russian Church Abroad and The Moscow Patriarchate, the highest body is the Synod of Bishops. A bishop, even if he is a Metropolitan or Patriarch, cannot override the decision of a diocesan bishop. If there is a problem, the final authority resides with the synod. But in practice, I have never heard of it coming to that. Sobornost has been the rule, not the exception. The OCA, being autocephalous, is the same, but the rank of Metropolitan is the highest rank there, again with the Synod of Bishops being the final authority. Does that make any sense?

Alexandr

Oh my! The forums and message boards are lighting up around the Orthodox world. The gamut is running full spectrum, with all sorts of speculation going on. The hotheads are having a field day. I have heard talk of everything, from the calling of an Ecumenical Council, to talk of anathematization. It is my understanding that the Brotherhood of Esphigmenou on the Holy Mountain have released a statement. If anyone can locate it(I imagine it is only in Greek at this point!), I would be most interested in reading it.

Please, everyone, pray for all the Heirarchs! At this point, both should fall at each other's feet and beg forgiveness of each other, no matter who is right or wrong!

Alexandr

As of this moment, the Patriarchate of Moscow has not issued or at least released a statement concerning this recent development. I would suspect that one should be forthcoming within 24 hours. I just checked the MP website.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

To just add onto Slavopodvizhnik's astute comments - ever since the reforms of Peter I the Synod was given the ultimate authority.

Prayers to the Holy Spirit whose descent we celebrate this coming Monday that all be enlightened in a spirit of peace and love with an abundance of holy and patient discernment.
FDD

Father Anthony is correct in observing that this latest development is not a joke, nor is it the material from which appropriate jokes are made.

It is well to note that so far all that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has done is to receive Bishop Basil, give him the title of Amphipolis, and make him Auxiliary to Archbishop Gabriel of Komana. While this extends the Archdiocese to England, where it had not functioned since the aftermath of World War II, it does not immediately place the Bishop of Amphipolis at the head of a diocese.

Other than that, I shall refrain - temporarily, no doubt - from my usual loquaciousness until I have been able to consult with some people who may be able to supplement the press release with further information.

Incognitus

Dear Father Anthony,

My levity was simply intended to affirm my view that this is not such a terrible situation.

It is better for the individuals concerned to leave the Moscow Patriarchate rather than have the years of work they have put into their Western mission go down the proverbial toilet.

In fact, the much-maligned autocephalous Ukrainian Orthodox movement only left canonical Orthodoxy when the repeated attempts of Ukrainian Orthodox to leave the jurisdiction of Moscow were ignored by the EP that didn't want to offend Moscow at the time.

Had it received back under its omophorion the Orthodox Ukrainians, there would have been no autocephalous, uncanonical movement in Ukraine.

Perhaps by this action the EP is showing that it has come of age and that it will no longer kow-tow to the narrow interests of the Moscow Patriarchate? Let's hope so, for the sake of world Orthodoxy.

What I find quite objectionable is the relative silence here from Orthodox and Orthodox-sympathisers concerning what is truly the alarming way in which the Moscow Patriarchate is asserting itself internationally as the true centre of world Orthodoxy, the true "heir" of the Byzantine tradition and the true "everything else."

The EP is quite correct in its assessment (with the appropriate condemnatory tone) concerning the pretensions of the MP to become a worldwide centre and authority figure of all Orthodoxy.

That is nothing new, historically. And the MP is quite serious about it, as it was in the time of Patriarch Nikon when Russia didn't mind sacrificing not a few Old Believers to bring its liturgical tradition into line with that of the rest of the Byzantine tradition to support the then pretensions of the Russian Tsar as the "New Byzantine Emperor."

When I said, "Where do I go to transfer?" I intended to mean two things.

One is that a transfer can be the best of all choices in order to rescue a situation, as has occurred in Britain and I applaud the EP for its courage for standing up to the MP - it is a courage that is not often seen.

Secondly, that such transfers have occurred throughout the history of the Eastern Churches, including that of the EC's. This is why I find it so hypocritical on the part of the Moscow imperial Church to whine about this when it involves part of its Church that decides to leave before "old world Russian identity" stifles the inroads into the West that the tradition of Met. Anthony Bloom had successfully achieved under his tenure.

The bishop involved has a much greater pastoral vision and sensitivity with respect to his flock and he should be applauded. Tensions will always occur but hopefully people will get over them.

I'm sorry I came across as only concerned with levity and with taking a pot-shot at certain circles of Orthodoxy.

Yes, I admit that was my deliberate intention.

I hope I've explained the context for that here. I don't expect you, or Incognitus or anyone else to agree with me.

That is how I feel about this matter against the backdrop of the history of Orthodoxy in Ukraine and Russia, the UGCC and the current situation of the Moscow Patriarchate that certainly shows that what is was in history, it continues to be such to this day.

If I were Orthodox, I would find that to be the much larger issue. Ultimately, it would appear that I don't understand the mindset of many Orthodox Christians and Moscow Patriarchate sympathisers.

Ultimately, I will stop bothering.

God bless,

Alex

Dear Alex,
Thanks for the posting. I have no reason to agree or disagree apart from whatever information may come my way.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate was willing to help the Ukrainian Orthodox in 1989, before they foolishly created a self-proclaimed
"autocephaly" and saddled themselves with several serious disadvantages. At that point, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was not about to endorse a fait accompli which violated many canons.

Things may yet become more auspicious.

Incognitus

Dear Father Anthony,

I apologise in the utmost rending of heart to you, to Incognitus and to all here whom I have offended with my levity post with respect to this situation.

May God bless and keep you all!

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

Yes, the EP has become a true friend (I was referring to the situation prior to 1921 etc.).

And the EP is our (Ukrainian et al.) true spiritual Mother!

Please accept my apology to you - I kiss your paper bag thrice! (oops, just can't control that levity, eh Alex? ).

Alex

I can offer an insight in to the mind set of some in the non-Internet world. I think it�s safe to say many people don�t contemplate these issues and would find them tertiary to their faith if they did. That might be right, that might be wrong, but I believe in many instances it is the way it is.

It might not perhaps be rare for many to have only the vaguest notion of the history of canonical relations in Orthodoxy and in particular the history between Constantinople and Moscow. Many people are of course in a church that is not under the jurisdiction of either of those, so what happens between them is not of direct effect.

I think many people if they thought about these issues would simply view them as part of the never ending political wrangling of bishops and their competing agendas, and would most likely only get seriously interested if they felt like either their pocket book or their children were at risk. I also know people who find participation in our own parish council to be too political and damaging to their faith.

I�m not condemning anyone, far from it actually.

Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Thank you, as always, for your sincerity and dispassionate commentary, sir!

If I'm reading the situation in Britain correctly, it is not far removed from what the Ukrainian Catholic Church is experiencing in North America today.

We have an internal struggle between those who want greater openness to the Anglo-majority and those who oppose that and want the opposite.

With the influx of Russians into Britain, the drive to see the Russian Orthodox Church as a culturally-oriented Russian institution in the first instance is natural - it happens in our Church too.

But the Bishop who has chosen to call on the EP to remove himself from what APPEARS to be a stifling cultural/ecclesial situation is at least interested in preserving all that the great Metropolitan Anthony Bloom did to present Orthodoxy within an intelligible Western cultural frame for the benefit of many.

That is ultimately a cultural, rather than a religious, struggle and many of our ethnoculturally-based Churches are engaged in it.

That is why I simply don't see it as a problem in the same way Father Anthony and all those others I've offended here do.

In fact, what the Bishop did demonstrates a STRENGTH of Orthodoxy in Britain rather than any perceived weakness.

Met. Anthony Bloom, if he is ever canonized (and hopefully that will happen in God's good time) will forever be the "Apostle of Orthodoxy in the West."

Perhaps the MP is afraid of promoting yet another English-language jurisdiction that will later seek autonomy from under its control.

That is as it should be by way of organic development.

This is also a challenge that EC Churches in the West face and an inappropriate resolution of this issue will literally be a life and death matter for them.

If I've offended you, please accept my apology as well! Thank you for your incisive analysis, as always.

Alex

I'm not offended in the least. But I'm curious: did you ever meet Anthony Bloom?

Incognitus

Not to have a conversation with him . . . his writings still serve as my guides.

I must needs withdraw for a while - it's bad enough when I offend laity, but when I've upset a Priest, as I have here, it leaves me shaken and so I will speak to you later.

Alex