(Orthodox Europe) - Interview with Bishop Irenei About Today’s Meeting of Primates in Amman
— Your Grace, today in Amman the heads of several of the Orthodox Churches are meeting. What can you tell us about this gathering?
Several primates of the Local Orthodox Churches have accepted the generous invitation of His Beatitude the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to meet in Amman in order to discus, in a fraternal and prayerful manner, some of the issues relating to the disunity that has arisen in parts of the Orthodox world. Their aim, as archpastors, is to seek the Orthodox path of cooperative resolution to difficult circumstances, constructively attempting to overcome worldly divisions through wise application of canonical principles and pastoral love.
— These issues of disunity, you are speaking of the situation regarding the Patriarchate of Constantinople?
It is well known that the most serious issues of disunity in the present moment are the result of the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which have brought their relationship with the rest of the Orthodox world into a tenuous state, and which relationships clearly cannot continue in a full manner without those behaviours and actions being addressed. So yes, such matters will be at the heart of the discussions in Amman; though there are also other issues that the primates and their representatives may discuss.
— Not all the Churches will have their primates in Amman. Does this hinder the meeting’s usefulness?
Of course it would be desirable for all the Local Churches to gather together to address such weighty matters together in a spirit of fraternity and love. However, so long as one of the patriarchs declares that only he alone has the right to convene a council of all the Churches, and refuses to do so, this is not a possibility. Such a position is of course neither canonical nor traditional, nor is it realistic, especially when that primate’s actions are themselves amongst the subjects such a council might be called to discuss.
In Amman, then, we see the convening of those primates and representatives of the Local Churches willing righteously and fearlessly to stand for the truth and follow the Orthodox path of addressing challenges in a conciliar way when they arise. Of course their work will not be definitive; it is but a beginning, but a necessary one, and one for which we can be thankful to God.
— You speak of “standing for the truth,” but we often hear on the internet that the disputes are mostly political, that they involve power struggles between Constantinople and Moscow but not matters of faith or dogma.
I hear these statements too, and it saddens me to realise how easily people are swayed by the politicisation of their perception. While it is true that, in its origins, the present situation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s relationship to the rest of the Orthodox world began in the territorial realms of jurisdictional incursion and a misuse of authority and power, it has since escalated directly into the realms of dogma — of the sacraments, of the nature of the Church. When individuals with no sacramental ordination in the Church are falsely claimed to be priests and hierarchs and set over the holy Mysteries, this is a fundamental denial of the nature of those sacraments, especially that of ordination. When those outside the Church are falsely claimed to be part of it, simply by fiat or pronouncement and not by repentance and sacramental baptism and chrismation, this is a fundamental denial of the nature of the Church itself, and of those sacramental realities. So these are the most grave of matters. Whatever may be the “political” issues surrounding the origins of the disputes, or whatever political factors may still figure into various behaviours on all sides, no one with their spiritual eyes open can deny that these are theological matters. They are matters of truth, and more importantly, of falsehood being promulgated under the guise of truth. It is for this reason that the hierarchs of the Churches, and above all their primates, must work together in earnest to ensure that such falsehood does not go uncorrected.
— Finally, Your Grace, do you see any significance in the fact that this meeting falls just before the beginning of Lent? Is there a message for us in this?
God’s hands are visible in all good things. Great Lent is a season of repentance, and it is only through repentance that sin is overcome and those in error are called back to the truth and life in Christ. This is true for each of us. We all sin, we all wander at times, wittingly or unwittingly, into error and must be called back through repentance to what is right and true. This is no less the case for clerics or hierarchs or those in the administration of Patriarchates. Error is error, truth is truth, and when the one appears, it must be cast out in favour of the other. This is the nature of our life in Christ.
Let us pray that the patriarchs and others gathered today in Amman will, by the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit, take positive and holy steps towards disclosing this path of repentance to all those currently sowing discord, so that real peace, not worldly peace but the peace that comes from unity in the truth who is God himself, may prevail always and everywhere.
Wednesday, February 26, 2020
Bp. Irenei of Richmond and W. Europe on Amman meeting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
"...the present situation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s relationship to the rest of the Orthodox world began in the territorial realms of jurisdictional incursion and a misuse of authority and power, it has since escalated directly into the realms of dogma — of the sacraments, of the nature of the Church. When individuals with no sacramental ordination in the Church are falsely claimed to be priests and hierarchs and set over the holy Mysteries, this is a fundamental denial of the nature of those sacraments, especially that of ordination..."
ReplyDeleteI was with him up until this point, which is just yet another restatement of Russia's legalistic, "we are all for ethno-national ecclesiology except of course when we are not such as with Ukraine" self serving position...
Jake, while I appreciate your view that Bp. Irenei's statement is "yet another restatement of Russia's legalistic...self-serving position", I thinks it's worth pointing out that the bishop's argument here is not merely canonical, but, more importantly, it's theological. On top of that it seems rather sound.
DeleteIn fact, this is exactly the same theological objection that the other Orthodox Churches have offered for not recognizing the OCU (including Cyprus & Albania both of which are essentially Greek), and the exact same rational is articulated by objecting hierarchs (even Greek ones) within the few Orthodox Churches that have recognized the OCU, which is to say that their objections are theological & not based on ethnicity or nationalism or colorful interpretations of obscure and/or now-irrelevant canons.
Given this reality your remarks would be much more useful if you provided a brief refutation of the theological statement Bp. Irenei made about how placing laymen without real ordination over the Holy Mysteries is acceptable rather than simply offering your personal opinion in conventional one-liner style.
Timmy, Beyond St. Paul's explication of how Grace overcomes the Law, which can only lead to death, in sentences such as this one (a kind of "lawful" reductionism):
Delete"...When those outside the Church are falsely claimed to be part of it, simply by fiat or pronouncement and not by repentance and sacramental baptism and chrismation, this is a fundamental denial of the nature of the Church itself, and of those sacramental realities..."
St. Augustine gave us the outline of the authoritative rejection of Donatism. I can't recall the name of St. Augustine's favorite example, a bishop who claimed that the Church's sacraments were invalid, who then himself broke from the main Donatist communion and became part of a minor offshoot (he thus argued that the main body of Donatism was invalid), then years later was again accepted (without "rebabtism" or "reordination" of course) back in to the main Donatist communion. St. Augustine pointed out how the Donatists did not even follow their own legalistic ecclesiology.
St. Augustine analogized that when someone owns or even wears a military uniform, and then later actually joins the military, he does not then need a new uniform.
Disturbing stuff is not the Church's theology? On the one hand, we affirm the true Reality of the Sacraments in that they are not mere 'rituals', and on the other hand we don't reduce the Church to a strict legal procedural court of sacramental perfection (or anything else). The Spirit blows will He will, the canonical sabbath made for man and not the reverse, etc. etc.
Thing is, men like Bishop Irenei & Met. Hilarion already know all this (Met. Hilarion has written explicitly about it in years past) but they put on their Russian company men hats and expound these half-truth arguments in their roles as...company men. It's sad and comi-tragical from several angles, not the least of which is their judgement before Him...
Timmy, you should try to engage with the "self serving position" part of Jake's post. It is not cynicism on his part, it is simply fact. The theology that many espouse is situational and opportunistic. They apply one standard to themselves and to their allies ("love" or "economia") while demanding that the letter of the law be applied to their enemies. This is not Christian. And if they honoured the sacred canons then they would not have trampled on them all these years.
DeleteJake, I just saw your reply. Unfortunately, I'm hitting the rack now & will be working 13+hour shifts tomorrow & Friday, but I'll carefully read your response over the weekend/early next week. Thanks for your thoughts!
DeleteUsing At. Augustine as a theological bulwark is always risky at best considering that he was wrong more often than not and in disagreement with the rest of the Fathers, West and East, much of the time. The Franks used his theology as their primary source and look where that went.
DeleteStill your use of donatism is out of context. Dontatists were rejected primarily because they believed a sinful priest couldn’t have grace or perform valid sacraments.
The rejection of Donatism didn’t include the rejection of the very real existence of the loss of grace when someone is legitimately excommunicated as Philaret and company were. We accept a priest and the sacraments he serves as valid up until he is officially deposed. At that point he does in fact lose grace. We don’t believe in the Catholic idea of indelible priesthood or Black Mass’s. It’s not magic that once you have it there’s no take backs, or spells that work regardless of God’s will or endorsement.
Also St. Paul was referring to the Old Testament Law and rigid legalism in general but notice that while he admitted all things were lawful, he clarified not all things are helpful, and he also gave up eating meat even tho it was lawful, so as not to cause division. You make it sound like anything goes because the law doesn’t save. St. Silouan is a very helpful resource on clarifying the nature of freedom within Orthodoxy, it’s neither rigid legalism, nor is it a total abandonment of theology and canonical practice.
St. Augustine is the man on Donatism, no way (i.e. historically, theologically, etc.) around that. To conflate his particular anthropology and its history in the west is to confuse the issues at best. Also, your right int hat Donatism was essentially a moral/theological judgement whereas who was ordained/when and where respective to the Ukraine is more 'economic'. When you take it to who and who has Grace on this economic level is when you turn towards the procedural/legal. MPatriarchate is explicit about this.
DeleteIronically, given both the letter and the spirit of the canon's and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the EP has the better court room position. The canon's explicitly give him the role of appelate judge. The MP made his determination. The Ukrainian people appealed. The EP made his judgement. It's all by the book - at least as much as can be expected given the existential changes (nation states, ad hoc and 'autocephaly', etc.) since the fall of the Empire.
The more you argue along these lines Sojourner, the more you convince me that "the heart of the matter" for you is a product of your western religious situation and way of thinking/living. In other words, you have taken the fundamental anxiety of authority, church, boundaries, and dogma rooted in the western religious experience (i.e. RC vs. Protestant vs. secular culture, freedom, "rights", etc. etc.) and are seeing it playing out in this long Greek vs. Slav Orthodox drama.
Orthodoxy's tension and working out of Unam Sanctam is a poor image to filter through this lens...
Again you haven’t responded to my citations of Canon laws which explicitly point out how EPB doesn’t have a leg to stand on...Also the idea that an aversion to neo-papism is a purely Western angst is laughable. The list of Eastern saints who share that aversion, both ancient and modern is extensive, as I recently pointed out quoting St. Justin Popovich and St. John the Wonderworker.
DeleteAgain are you seriously claiming that if a priest is excommunicated by his ruling bishops in a universally recognized spiritual court, that we can’t make a judgment call on whether or not he still has the grace of the priesthood and the ability to perform valid sacraments? It honestly baffles me that you could make such statements in good faith.
For being above Western influence you sound like a Protestant on a regular basis, that is when you dont sound like a scholastic Catholic relying on St. Augustine above all others. No rules, no canons, everything is relative, anything goes, being excommunicated means nothing, being in schism means nothing, the explicit teachings of the Fathers count for nothing, what exactly do you put stock in? What is your faith exactly?
I ask this seriously because I have used the words of saints, ecumenical councils, canons, and historical references, and none of it seems to matter to you.
Your baffled because your understanding of the Holy Canons and their historical application is thin and based on almost entirely upon the propagandist rhetoric and "neo-federationalist" argument of the MP. See post below.
DeleteYou could take an actual canon law class (I believe there are several online options) from one of the several seminaries here in NA...
So deflect from any real answer and ad hominem , bravo you are a gentleman and a scholar, I bow to your inestimable wisdom.
DeleteIt's helpful to remember that Metropolitan Irinei's own synod was in communion with a variety of unordained schismatics over the years. One such group was led by a man who was defrocked twice; initially by the Church of Greece and later on by the old calendarists themselves. His consecration to the episcopate was done secretely by people whose ordinations are not recognized by the local Church.
ReplyDeleteWhile his Grace can and certainly should express his views, it doesn't mean that they are consistent, correct or in line with the greater good of the Church.
Are they still in communion with the Old Calendarists? Nope. Your criticism is misplaced.
DeleteThey never broke communion with the unordained schismatics, the schismatics broke communion with them. Today, Metropolitan Irinei's synod is comprised mostly of the same hierarchs who were in communion with the unordained schismatics. Considering its half century track record of communion with schismatics, this is not the synod that should be teaching the rest of the Church about the canons.
DeleteI think that overall this turned out well and in time it will lead to a council. Starting out slow and building consensus is a good way to solve problems like division. In time, those who assumed the meeting was a council may change their minds and join the fraternal gathering as well. Who knows, perhaps the EP will have a change of heart. I hope so.
ReplyDeleteOr because the clergy in question are self made or excommunicated and have no semblance of pastoral concern for anything other than their own power and influence. Philaret wasn’t even content with his get out of jail free card because it didn’t grant enough glory and there’s already a fresh schism within the schismatics. Without humility or repentance no amount of rubber stamps can make a bad tree bear good fruit.
ReplyDeleteSo Philaret no longer matters? What if he had millions of Ukrainians? What if Antioch granted him a Tomas against EPB’s express wishes? Why do numbers negate faith? Why is it that the majority of Ukrainians are still faithful to Metropolitan Onuphry? Why is he Ukrainian yet able to be faithful in spite of being with an “abusive” husband as you claim.
ReplyDeleteYou have your narrative and a good part of it includes ignoring the other side of the story. You could accuse me or others of the same I suppose, but I’m comfortable with siding with those who do not accept self made clergy or the idea that EPB is first without equal, Pope of the East, the only one allowed to call meetings, the one who must be obeyed but not questioned, who can invade any jurisdiction and do whatever he wants there without council or consensus against the advice of every Patriarchate.
Let us not forget that everyone told him this was a bad idea and that we should talk about it, and he ignored everyone, and the consequences of his arrogance continue to spread.
"...For the record, I do believe that the MP and UOC-MP have moved beyond the Soviet past...."
ReplyDeleteBrother, this is clear in you objections to the MP but it is an incorrect assumption. The OCU continues to occupy churches in the Ukraine and terrorize believers from the canonical Church. I encourage you to reach out and get to know some of them and you will see that the OCU is a huge mistake.
Well you accuse Moscow of politics but you justify your side by politics, and personal opinion on top of that.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot measure the validity of political opinions, you have yours and I have mine, there is no way to determine who is right and stubbornly repeating political lines is a poor substitute for Orthodox theology.
What remains at the heart of this issue is whether or not we have a First without Equals whose authority does not have boundaries, or if we have clear jurisdictions between equals. Rejecting EPB’s blatant power plays does not make us Protestant, it keeps us from becoming Papists. Moscow is not attempting to become First Among Equals, they’re trying to keep what they have which is autocephaly.
If EPB can revoke jurisdiction and claim territory at will, even if his ostensible reason is to grant said territory “independence” which again the “OCU” is completely subject to EPB which is par for the course, he surrounds himself with subordinate yes men, not respected peers; then we have a very different Orthodoxy going forward.
Zizioulas is currently promoting just this; he is formulating a new Trinitarian dogma that overemphasizes the Monarchy of the Father, and then claims that our hierarchy should reflect the Trinity as well, thus making EPB first without Equal.
You can keep avoiding the fact that EPB has violated Orthodox tradition, canon laws, and spiritual principles, and claiming that it’s all in order to be pastoral, but even if that’s true, now we have a different church with a different ecclesiology; and personally I thank God that not everyone is willing to go along with such madness.
Among the Greek hierarchy there are many who are openly opposing EPB for the exact reasons I have stated, but unfortunately EPB has a good chunk of the church of Greece under his thumb through the unusual situation of having his own bishops in another church.
Sojourner,
ReplyDeleteAre you a North American? Are you a convert or a 2nd (or 3rd, etc.) Orthodox?
I ask because when you say:
"...What remains at the heart of this issue is whether or not we have a First without Equals whose authority does not have boundaries, or if we have clear jurisdictions between equals. Rejecting EPB’s blatant power plays does not make us Protestant, it keeps us from becoming Papists..."
This is not a description of "the heart" of Orthodoxy's particular history and 2000 year internal tension with primacy and Unam Sanctum. It *is* a description (of at least part of the heart) of the western, particularly American religious experience...
"...I won't argue that, because you are convinced that HAH Bartholomew wants to be a Pope. That is not true, but it makes for a good talking point, doesn't it?..."
ReplyDeleteIt is for him beyond a 'talking point', it is nothing less than "the heart of the matter" (his words). This is what has so many English speaking and western situated Orthodox flocking to the MP's rhetorical position. For us westerners, authority and primacy are core and very anxious issues.
The MP and Slav's as a whole "get" this better than the Greeks, and so their propaganda machines are simply better at pushing these buttons.
Again Jake, your opinions vs other peoples opinions. The battle of opinions is quite boring.
ReplyDeleteI specified the heart of the matter was whether or not EPB has the right to revoke 330 years of jurisdiction, the canons of the church explicitly saying that after 30 years of uncontested jurisdiction even if someone feels they had a claim, they didn’t bother to make it. So 330 is far beyond the acceptable point of revoking territory.
If EPB can revoke jurisdiction at will, he now has authority beyond any other bishop in Church history. Again I say this is the heart of the matter, not because of paranoia but because it is really what this comes down to.
Claiming his actions are merely pastoral is willful blindness to the precedent of his actions. That’s an emotional opinion which doesn’t sway me because the facts remain that its a new ecclesiological power structure.
I’ll admit, I don’t like EPB, the schisms he has caused, the arrogance of his words and actions, the new theology that his bishops are promoting, none of it is good in my eyes. Moscow has the potential to become just as bad if not worse under the right circumstances, but we can burn that bridge when we come to it, this is the situation at this moment.
Jake your go to method is to put people you don’t agree with into a box that you label as ignorant and misinformed so that you don’t have to take them seriously. It’s a very effective method of ignoring other people’s views regardless of their content. You dont seem to care about Orthodox tradition, canons, or spiritual principles, even when they are stated clearly and precisely by saints. You’ve taken St. Paul’s epistle, which had a very specific meaning for a specific context, as well as way of being applied in general, and you’ve decided rules don’t exist due to your interpretation of the fact that the Old Testament Law cannot grant salvation.
In any case, again, this continuously gets reduced to “My opinion, which cannot be backed up with primary sources or quotes, or historical precedence in Church history, is better than your opinion”.
That would be fine and dandy...if it were true. But here is the reality. Hoards of people who don't even attend Church and are not part of the village (atheists and nationalists) are stacking the deck and taking Churches away from devout and God fearing people of the canonical Church. Otherwise, they just cut the locks and beat the people and clergy. There's no way to sugarcoat these criminal acts.
ReplyDelete"...the canons of the church explicitly saying that after 30 years of uncontested jurisdiction even if someone feels they had a claim, they didn’t bother to make it..."
ReplyDeleteFactually, which canon are you referring here to?
If I take the time to drag it up again, will it actually change your mind about anything? You don’t seem to put any stock in canons
ReplyDeleteNo really, drag it up - I can't think of what you are referencing here to.
ReplyDelete“Thus, Canon 129 (133) of the Council of Carthage reads, ‘If anyone… brought some place to catholic unity and had it in his jurisdiction for three years, and nobody demanded it from him, then it shall not be claimed from him, if also there was a bishop during these three years who should have claimed it but kept silent’. And Canon 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council establishes the thirty years’ term for a possible conciliar consideration of disputes over the belonging of even particular church parishes: ‘Parishes in each diocese… shall be invariably under the power of bishops who manage them, especially if for thirty years they undoubtedly were under his jurisdiction and governance’.”
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t even to begin to speak of how many canons expressly forbid the accepting or communing with any clergy who have been officially excommunicated, and that such things cannot be revoked arbitrarily.
ReplyDeleteAgain while canons are to be used with discernment and have their limits, if we’re to look at them for guidance, its overwhelmingly obvious that EPB does not have canon law on his side. If anything he is currently communing with schismatics which places him in equal standing with them, i.e schismatic. But that isn’t helpful for restoring peace, even if its something worth taking seriously and why I will not be communing with the schismatics or those who serve with them.
Excommunicated by their ruling bishops, recognized as legitimately excommunicated by EPB in writing, before the US State Department paid him a visit and his tune suddenly changed, and in the case of a Roman Catholic priest renouncing Catholicism they can be received into the true Church at the discretion of the bishop they are brought in under, that is a historically documented practice.
ReplyDeleteOnce again you cannot defend your position from an Orthodox theological standpoint so you resort to throwing mud on our Russian Orthodox brethren by reducing their entire existence to one of military pawn to big bad Putin.
Never mind that Constantinople was literally taken over by America when the CIA deposed the legitimate Patriarch in favor of one who was pro AmeriKa. If anyone is politically compromised it is the Patriarchate of Constantinople which doesn’t have a leg to stand on, pressured by the Turkish government who they have to pay on a regular basis to survive, which leads to financial scandals on a regular basis, and pressured by the CIA and US State Department to take a strong anti-Russian stance both during the Cold War at its most blatant, and now.
So again if you’re going to throw mud, get ready for a mess.
I don’t bother resorting to such argumentation though in regular discourse because it’s not necessary, Orthodox tradition, canon law, historical precedence, spiritual principles, the words of the Saints, plenty to work with and non of it favorable to EPB’s new ecclesiology.
And again, to Jake or anyone else who would say my dislike of Constantinople’s ambitions is just the result of being influenced by Moscow’s supposed propaganda, long before this most recent schism I found myself in agreement with the saints who spoke on the decline of Constantinople, such as St. John the Wonderworker and St. Justin Popovich
ReplyDelete“Let us be frank: the conduct of the representatives of Constantinople in the last decades has been characterized by the same unhealthy restlessness, by the same spiritually ill condition as that which brought the Church to the betrayal and disgrace of Florence in the 15th Century. (Nor was the conduct of the same Church under the Turkish yoke an example of all times. Both the Florentine and the Turkish yokes were dangerous for Orthodoxy.) With the difference that today the situation is even more ominous: formerly Constantinople was a living organism with millions of faithful - she was able to overcome without delay the crisis brought about by external courses as well as the temptation to sacrifice the faith and the Kingdom of God for the goods of this world. Today, however, she has only metropolitans without faithful, bishops who have no one to lead (i.e. without dioceses), who nonetheless wish to control the destinies of the entire Church.” St. Justin Popovich 1977
“In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a higher superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this, persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad: having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power—represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.” St. John (letter republished In the Orthodox Word 1972)
The smugness of stating no takes backs there’s nothing we can do now and this will all just magically work out whether we like it or not? Not a good look.
ReplyDeleteThe longer this goes on without a serious council, whether ecumenical or merely between the relevant parties, the more likely this is to become a permanent and expanding schism.
Church history has shown that even minor schisms started over misunderstandings or rash unilateral actions, when left untreated, more often than not end up unresolved. This isn’t minor, and if dialogue doesn’t begin now, I doubt if we’ll see unity restored.
You will probably respond saying it just needs 100 years to fester, but that is completely cynical given the harm that will take place, the divisions that will continue to spread and the souls that will be lost.
The very fact that hierarchs among every single Church, with the possible exception of Constantinople, have spoken out against union with schismatics in this fashion, is proof that this isn’t simply Russians being legalistic or territorial or political. If MP was just looking out for its own power, you wouldn’t have well known Greek theologians and hierarchs condemning EPB left and right, including signed petitions from over 100 theologians monastics and clergy in the Church of Greece and Mt. Athos.
EPB isn’t interested in a council because he knows he would be outnumbered and it will shine a spotlight on the fact that he isn’t the be all end all in Orthodoxy. Contrary to his scathing letter to his fellow hierarchs that his decisions are to be ratified, not questioned, the majority of Orthodoxy still prefers the conciliar method, which he has thrown to the wind.
I really don’t want to see Constantinople fall away, but it seems like all but a foregone conclusion. Nothing happens quickly in Orthodoxy, and the hierarchs have, with the exception of some notable saints, turned a blind eye to the antics of Constantinople for decades out of a desire to keep up the appearance of unity, but now that illusion has been shattered, so lines are being drawn. Sadly it will not be pretty, Constantinople will not go quietly or alone, but the writing is on the wall.
One bishop made a document declaring excommunicated and self made clergy valid. This does not make it so.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the wide array of people from all jurisdictions and clerical/monastic levels who are adamantly opposed to this, its going to take a lot more than stubbornness to put a positive spin on this travesty.
There’s just no getting around the unorthodox manner in which this was done. The rehabilitation of schismatics is possible, and a hoped for outcome in any situation. But this has gone beyond that, its now about whether or not one Bishop can revoke jurisdictional sovereignty and overturn the judgments of spiritual courts that he previously agreed to. Never mind that Constantinople’s previous documented argument was that Autocephaly can only be granted with Pan-Orthodox consensus, and that’s why they refuse to acknowledge the OCA, ostensibly.
In any case, Lent is almost here and I’m realizing this has probably been a temptation that I haven’t handled well. I’ve made most of the points I want to make, presented quotes from saints, canon laws, logical consequences etc etc if we still disagree at this point that’s never going to change, it is what it is.
For every one situation that "perhaps" went the way that you say....I can show 100 that went the way I explained it to you. Of course it is very convenient for you to scream "propaganda" because it allows you to justify the massive persecution happening against the UOC.
ReplyDeleteBBBllippisssh Blup Blup Blup Blup
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSojourner,
ReplyDeleteThanks for digging up that 30 years reference. As you cite it within canon 17 of Chalcedon but I notice you leave off the "and", the very next sentence:
"...and if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. 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.
So, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, in his role explicitly stated in the Holy Canons (e.g. canons 9,17, and of course 28 of Chalcedon) heard the appeal of the Urkaine and granted autocephaly, this is somehow "uncanonical" and or in the words of Bp. Irenei somehw against the very nature of the sacrements and the Church?!?
Why don't you back that up and cite the canons that explicitly support the "neo-federationalism" (or is it "neo-democratic"?) that appears to be presupposed by you and Bp. Irenei? While your at it, please explain how such neo-federationalism is the Orthodox (theological and historical) and a/the answer (or is it simply the opposite of) what you call "neo-papalism" to which you allege EP Bartholomew subscribes.
(tangent: interesting is it not, how the EP and MP have reversed their positions/roles in a fundamental way in just 50 years {i.e., from OCA's autocephaly & now Ukraine's}...sort of reveals the level all this struggle is at - what John Erickson calls "miserable ecclesiastical nominalism")
OORRRRR, instead of playing the amateur canonist, you could read something of the actual history of Unam Sanctam, primacy, ecclesiology, and autocephaly in the Orthodox Church of the East. You could start with Erickson's essay "The Autocephalous Church" in his book "The Challenge of Our Past".
I should warn you however that what you will find is that the history will not support your "heart of the matter", this anxious proxy war with "Papalism" that you believe is at the heart of Orthodox ecclesiology and the current territorial dispute between the MP and the EP in the Ukraine in particular and the wider ecclesiology of autocephaly in general…
“Wronged by his metropolitan” so you’re claiming Philaret, the guy who just got dismissed by EPB for being crazy, was wronged by MP when he was excommunicated, for being crazy. A spiritual court was held and by the way recognized by EPB as being valid.
ReplyDeleteAlso how would that apply to revoking an entire jurisdiction?
Would it shock you to know Jake that people smarter than you don’t hold your opinions? It might be hard to imagine, I’m probably not one of them as an ignorant person, but you are supremely confident in your self evaluation of your own understanding. It’s a wonder you aren’t being called in as an 2 on all this.
Again your entire argument boils down to “I have secret knowledge that makes me infinitely wiser than you, and unless you share my opinion you have been brainwashed and are ignorant” what a brilliant way to convince yourself and alienate others.
Here are the real questions: Does the EP now think of himself as having a primacy of power? Does he feel he can give and revoke autocephaly by the wave of his hand? Does he believe (as Elpifophoros has written) that he is first without equals? The answer to all these questions is: YES.
ReplyDeleteDo you have any idea how insanely delusional that sounds?
ReplyDeleteEPB seizes and an entire territory from MP and somehow he is the one being attacked?
Show me a single source where any Moscow Patriarchate representative has stated that the canons no longer apply, that EPB is not first among equals, or that we need a new canonical order.
You love to say what Moscow thinks or is saying, but you have never provided a single quote to back it up. Whereas EPB and his bishops/theologians can be quoted extensively and promote themselves quite publicly how they would like to change the canonical order in his favor.
Again, with every comment I see how dialogue here is fruitless because our conceptions of reality seem to be vastly divergent. EPB is on the war path making power plays and you actually expect people to believe he is the victim? Moscow didn’t go to Constantinople and revoke their sovereignty while installing excommunicated Old Calendarists as an autocephalous Church on their doorstep and calling it peace. Until then playing the victim card is pathetic, but it fits perfectly with a Pro Western political agenda that would vilify anything Russian.