www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Autocephaly

As often happens, Threads lose their way, wear thin or where out; so I'll start this new one with the hope that this might find some strength, because I think this issue is very much Church News and is in some way related to the Pochaev Lavra as Orthodox Catholic pointed out in, what I think was, the fourth or fifth post of the previous closed thread:

"Well, when did other autocephalous Churches and Orthodox patriarchates become established through Pan-Orthodox Councils in recent centuries? I'm asking, not telling. And wasn't the recent Council called by the EP ignored by the MP and its allied Churches? Is the Moscow Patriarchate now the first among equals (although it is highly unlikely it considers itself equal to anyone) within Orthodoxy? For the sake of Orthodoxy, I certainly hope not."

I would like to point out to Swan that his previous post manifests the very disagreements within Orthodoxy over the issue of autocephaly; who grants it, how it is granted and so forth. It is very much an unsettled issue, and, along with the concept of Primacy, needs to be addressed as it is ultimately a theological and ecclesiological question, not to mention a scandalous impediment to evangelization.

My answers to OrthodoxCatholic’s questions are on the post immediately following that one. I would say to frame it as a disagreement within Orthodoxy is not quite correct. No Orthodox Church outside of the EP accepts the grandiose claims being made at the Phanar. Even those who have made generous interpretations of Constantinople’s primacy (eg Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos) stop well short of the sweeping assertions peppering the EP’s recent statements. The Phanar’s current attitude is not representative of ancient tradition but of the Ottoman captivity which profoundly distorted both the EP’s internal life and its relation to other churches. You’ll notice that almost all of the incidents the Phanar cites to buttress its claims come from this period. The Phanar remembers it as the glory days; everyone else remembers it as a time of stifling corruption and Greek domination enforced by the Sultan.

The case is similar to the autocephaly of the Polish Orthodox Church? Are there substantial differences? Of course, taking away the fact that Moscow recognized the Polish autocephaly decades after Constantinople.

But has not the Ecumenical Patriarch tried over a number of years to summon a General and Great Council to address serious issues pertaining to Autocephaly, disunity and uncanonical irregularities in the diaspora? It was finally on the verge of success, but when all was nearly set the "elephant in the closet" so to speak, and a few others failed to show up? Ultimately someone has to take the bull by the horn, as they say? You need to talk about Primacy, my friend, and who has it. The "honor" bit simply does not work, IMHO. It's as simple as that.

Autocephaly was supposed to be on the agenda at the Cretan council- however the EP insisted on some conditions which were unacceptable to the other churches, and since the council rules required unanimous approval for everything, it was stricken from the agenda. That’s a major problem with the Cretan council- everything had to be pre-approved and unanimous, which made a free and open discussion of real problems impossible. It was not on the verge of any success- it was a rubberstamp council that solved nothing and not even the presence of all the churches could change that. Our hierarchs are afraid of the Holy Spirit it seems.

Primacy without conciliarity (real conciliarity, not rubberstamp conciliarity) is simply tyranny. It creates more problems than it solves. Granted, our current decentralization is not working in the modern world either. That’s why I support the Church of Romania’s proposal of a permanent pan-Orthodox Synod, which is very practical with modern transportation and communication. This would allow us to address our problems honestly and regularly without the need for a heavy handed primate. Right now the EP seems completely uninterested in such a body because it would render their alleged privileges quite superfluous.

In any case, you have to come to grips with Primacy even with the model proposed by the Romanians. I know your article in Orthodoxy in Dialogue was addressed to an issue within Orthodoxy, but you might have mentioned Rome at the top of the list of ancient Patriarchates. But she's another "Elephant in the Closet"!

The Orthodox world is in a lot of turmoil now over the Tomos for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. I agree with Utroque that there is NOT that clarity in ecclesiological thought and historical praxis for anyone to condemn anyone here over the issue of how its was granted.

The problem with world Orthodoxy in fact goes beyond ecclesiology as such. The way of a Council to "resolve" the issue in Ukraine would be doomed to failure however.

The main reason is that the control of Orthodox Ukrainians by the ROC is more to do with imperial domination within the context of the MP's (and Mr. P's) Russky Mir ideology. Ukrainians and others who had ever had the "pleasure" of being under the MP's control want to divest themselves of it and the Ukrainian especially. I don't need to go into that whole obvious issue. If it is not obvious to some, then kindly start including social, cultural and political issues within your ecclesiological scope.

The ROC and the Russian state (if someone would like to make the argument the two are separate - that should make for interesting reading . . . or not) see Ukraine and its Orthodox people - including the Ukrainian Greco-Catholics - as part of its original jurisdiction in both ecclesiological AND political/national terms. They don't want to lose it because imperial powers don't like losing territory or people. But the Ukrainian Orthodox don't want to belong under Moscow and Moscow refuses to let them go or to give up claims to Ukraine.

Let's understand that the MP is hated in Ukraine. I know that the UOC-MP parishes that are now going "into schism" (what jibberish from the MP!) to join with the Orthodox Church of Ukraine have, for the last four years simply stopped commemorating the MP or Metropolitan Onuphrius. My relatives who are Orthodox have related all kinds of situations like this to me. And the MP has no one else to blame but its own heavy-handed imperialist attitude upon the repose of Met. Vladimir (Sabodan) +memory eternal! The MP moved quickly to remove Ukrainian Orthodox professors of theology from their posts, for example, and brought in Metropolitan Onuphrius who is more pro-Moscow than Moscow and who committed any number of bad pr moves to hasten the estrangement between himself and Ukrainian Orthodox.

But in truth were a pan-Orthodox Council called to resolve this and other issues would it truly take a hard look at how the Moscow Patriarchate has acted in the past and in the present, at the way it was complicit in crimes against, say, the Ukrainian Greco_Catholic Church as but one example? Its collaboration with the communist government and its continuing collaboration with the current Russian government? Should there not be sanctions and penalties imposed on churches and churchmen who act thusly? What is even Christian about such actions undertaken by the MP?

Let's leave the Phanar and its glorious past out of this right now, shall we? There are some serious issues that world Orthodoxy needs to face up to if it isn't going to betray its own legacy. I've said enough and I don't apologize to anyone for affirming any of this. Alex

Alex, this thread is not about Ukraine. It is, per the OP, the general question of autocephaly and the EP’s primacy.

I don’t see why. Apart from updating the bulletin board and opening the mail I don’t see why a pan-Orthodox Synod would need this primacy.

Conciliatory without a Head or Primate invites chaos, and I'm not sure which is worse. Like it or not, I think you have to come to grips with Primacy. A pan Orthodox Council without it would be much worse than a rubber stamp! But a letter opener? Please.

That's highly questionable. In any case the chief source of chaos at the moment is precisely the primate. This whole idea of primacy arose from a long defunct geopolitical situation and is now more a source of discord than unity.

It seems to me that the very concept of Autocephaly implies primacy, as in "Head". I think the chaos may come from a refusal to honor the Primate. As far as the geopolitical nature of primacy is concerned, that may have come from Canon 28 of Chalcedon which Pope Leo rejected precisely for that reason. It is not defunct, but comes from the apostolic nature of the original Tetrarchy, IMHO. If strengthened and understood as service, it could be a great source of unity among Orthodox and others.

Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the last of all and the servant of all." (Mk 9, 35)

You might like this interesting article by a distinguished professor at the Fordham University department of Orthodox Studies, George E Demacopoulos

Ecumenical Patriarch [academia.edu]

"If the Ecumenical Patriarchate were acting upon the basis of non-ecclesiastical criteria, it would wait for the outcome of the presidential elections in Ukraine. But the issue of Autocephaly is an ecclesiastical event and not an aspect of politics,” Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew pointed out, referring to the granting of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine in his address at the Patriarchal Church after the Divine Liturgy, which he celebrated today, Tuesday, June 11, for the feast of the Holy Apostles Bartholomew and Barnabas, the day he celebrates his Name Day.

“The greatest ecclesiastical event during this period was the grant by the Ecumenical Throne, due to various divisions, of Autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine. This was a product of the loving and pastoral care of the Mother Church to the pious Ukrainian people. We have no other motive in this initiative, and contrary reports on the Internet and elsewhere not only do not have a trace of truth, but deliberately distort reality; they are ‘fake news,’” said His All-Holiness, who welcomed His Eminence Epiphanios, the Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine, and his Holy Synod, congratulating him “for his loyalty to the Mother Church and for his good struggle for ecclesiastical matters in Ukraine.”

His Beatitude Epiphanios, Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine and his Holy Synod, had the opportunity to express to His All-Holiness their cordial wishes and gratitude for the actions of the Ecumenical Throne in favor of their Church.

“The Holy Apostle and your Patron Saint Patriarch Bartholomew was crucified. And you are constantly crucified by human weakness and the many problems that arise, especially beyond your immediate jurisdiction. Therefore, ‘great one of the Ecumenical Throne and highest Hierarch,’ we find that the life of your patron saint is a parallel of your life, as the Metropolitan of Kydonia and Apokoronas pointed out in his address, and at another point he pointed out: ‘Your All-Holiness, you wrote on October 22, 2016, that the role of the Patriarchate is not political and will never be. And so it is that, as the Mother Church, through your consecrated predecessors, has often preached martyrdom despite the protection of the Patriarch, and death for the flock despite the Patriarch’s life.’”

https://theorthodoxworld.com/addres...cal-event-and-not-an-aspect-of-politics/