(Sofia Echo) - The Bulgarian Orthodox Church has revised its statute to ban selling or mortgaging church property, and will trim back the powers of its head, the Patriarch, in favour of more power for the Holy Synod.
These were among decisions made at the church’s sixth National Church Council, which resumed for a week of discussions from October 6 to 12 2008 after being unable to deal with all its agenda items at the initial meeting in May. This time around, church leaders again did not manage to get through the list – the national council will resume again from December 9 to 12.
Dveri, the website dedicated to Bulgarian Orthodox Church matters, said that all the decisions made at the National Church Council’s second session would be published in a special issue of the church’s official newspaper.
Other issues on which the council has made pronouncements, to be disclosed in the church newspaper, include Bulgaria’s controversial new Family Code, the law on cultural values and the Education Act.
Finalising a long-running debate in the church, the National Church Council said that the church would not sell or mortgage its real estate, but clergy would be permitted to lend out property for use.
There has been a controversy in the church on the question of property, including about an episode in which Varna Metropolitan Kiril – who is widely believed to be harbouring hopes of becoming Patriarch – reportedly was involved in a transaction in church property on the Black Sea coast. At the church council, Kiril said that each eparchy should be allowed to dispose its property without requiring the authorisation of the Holy Synod.
The council decided on a significant change in labour and salary conditions for priests, who until now were paid in candles that they sold to earn their keep. From now, priests will have labour contracts with fixed salaries and monthly insurance contributions from the Holy Synod. The basic salary will be 220 leva a month, but the Holy Synod will be allowed to authorise the payment of additional premiums from the eparchical budget. As to the candles, the proceeds of sales will go to the eparchical budget.
Significantly, given the advanced age of current church head Patriarch Maxim and the contest – however officially unstated – to succeed him, the church council decided to scrap the minimum age limit for eligibility to be Patriarch. This move could open up the race after Maxim’s death by lengthening the list of senior clergy eligible for election.
The church council also decided to remove the rule requiring the Patriarch’s name to be mentioned during prayers at Sunday liturgies. The eparchies will pray instead for their respective regional bishops. Wow.
The Holy Synod decision-making process was changed, so that the synod need only consult the Patriarch but will not require his agreement in taking a decision. Double wow.
Bulgarian daily newspaper Sega reported Maxim as saying: “You take away all the Patriarch’s rights, and wonder why there are disputes in the church”.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
More on the Bulgarian Orthodox issues
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Holy Synod decision-making process was changed, so that the synod need only consult the Patriarch but will not require his agreement in taking a decision.
ReplyDeleteIsn't this what the position of Primus inter pares is actually supposed to be like? If he is only primus and first in honour and not jurisdiction, then why is his agreement needed when each bishop is equal to him?
But in actual fact, in Orthodoxy, in practice, the Primus does exercise jurisdiction, over the synod and over those other bishops he is supposedly equal with. If the majority agree, why is his consent needed because consent implies superiority and not equality.
So, as Zizoulas has argued elsewhere I think, a universal Primate, who presides over a universal Synod also needs to have jurisdiction and not merely a primacy of honour only since Patriarchs exercise effective juridical primacy and not only one of honour in their respective patriarchates.
Primacy in Orthodoxy is, in practice, never one of honour only but includes jurisdiction as well. In practice. So why is the spectre of a universal primacy of jurisdiction so alien to most Orthodox?
What do you think?