We keep seeing these defrocks and "re-frockings" in contested locales often in recent years (Asia, Western Europe, the US). It's confusing to the people, looks silly to the outside world, and is often more petty than proper.
(Orthochristian) The Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Alexandria ruled on Friday, February 16, to defrock the Russian Orthodox Church’s second African Exarch.
After an extensive discussion on “the issue of the Russian Church’s encroachment on the spiritual and pastoral jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria on the African continent,” the Holy Synod resolved to defrock His Grace Bishop Konstantin of Zaraisk, according to the Synodal report published by Romfea.
The report states that Bp. Konstantin, who was appointed acting Patriarchal Exarch of Africa by the Russian Holy Synod on October 11, had settled for some time in Cairo, on the territory of the Archdiocese of Alexandria, where he committed a series of canonical offenses, including “encroachment on the jurisdiction of an ancient throne, distribution of antimensia, buying off native clergy, even defrocked clergy, factionalism, ethno-phyletism, etc.”
Bp. Konstantin commented simply: “The fact of the matter is that I am a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. I am subordinate to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia as his vicar and to the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church as any of its bishops.”
Recall that the Alexandrian Synod ruled to defrock the first African Exarch, Metropolitan Leonid of Klin, in November 2022 for the same offenses, though the Russian Church formally rejects this decision. However, he was recently released from all his positions by the Russian Synod and awaits ecclesiastical trial for irregularities connected with his release from the All Saints Church in Moscow that serves as the headquarters for the Exarchate and the handing over of control to his successor.
In February 2022, the Alexandrian Synod also ruled to defrock Archpriests George Maximov and Andrei Novikov, the two most active priests of the Russian Exarchate in Africa.
Posts
The "defrocking" serves three purposes:
ReplyDelete1.) It asserts the authority of the Bishop (or claim to such authority).
2.) It removes any ambiguity for the local faithful: In our eyes, these people are not clergy, so you are to have nothing to do with these people or their supporters.
3.) It is a notice to the other Churches that they too are to have nothing to do with these people (which to my knowledge, the Exarchate is as much a pariah on the Pan-Orthodox level as the OCU are).
The other Churches commune with the EP while staying away from the OCU, and they commune with the MP while staying away from the Exarchate (If I remember right, Bulgaria barred their clerics from having any dealings with them----not sure if other Churches were that explicit).
It communicates in the strongest possible terms that "jurisdictionalism" (which along with ethnophyletism, is the biggest challenge-distortion of Orthodoxy today) will not be accepted in Africa. Elsewhere, it's a bit more muddy, but the effect is the same.
It seems silly at first glance, but looking at it this way, it is a means to reject any mainstreaming or acceptance of "jurisdictionalism." Whether it will be effective remains to be seen.
From the Russian perspective, it is irrelevant. Russia has already excommunicated those Greeks recognizing the OCU. Russia would never have formed the exarchate unless they were indifferent to the Alexandrian reaction. Moreover, the Exarchate's significance is that the split which has emerged since the CP's recognition of the OCU is likely permanent. The MP is just waiting for the CP to formally declare a Unia.
DeleteIt's just a matter of time.
Then everyone will have to choose. Until then, I expect it will be very messy. This shows up more on the Greek radar than the Russian though. The Russians have made peace with the inevitable schism.
Michael,
DeletePerhaps the Moscow Patriarchate feels that way, but that is certainly not how the other Churches feel. Moscow BROKE COMMUNION with those Bishops who recognized the OCU. Other Bishops freely concelebrate with the EP, so it is incorrect to talk about excommunication. No one Patriarchate can unilaterally declare another out of the Church. Patriarch Kyrill is not the Pope, nor is Patriarch Bartholomew.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not going to join the Catholics. The homosexual couples blessing and gay "marriage" debacle in Greece has ensured that (if there ever was a chance of it happening in the first place, which I doubt).
Like it or not, the MP is stuck with the EP. The two brothers at the family gathering who refuse to speak to each other and sit on opposite sides of the table (and do awkward things like going through a 3rd brother to get the salt passed).
You are right about one thing, it is messy. All human relationships are. The Exarchate as a separate structure is not going away, I agree. But, there too, is a fix. Let the Russians continue their work, with the stipulation that they have Alexandria's blessing (and Alexandria is commemorated, minimally by the head of the Exarchate). A lot of bad blood is there, but such a solution could be worked out. The other Churches are not on board with the OCU, but they are equally horrified by the Exarchate.
That is one of the consequences of the Exarchate. It has made the other Churches wary of Moscow, in a way that wasn't there before. Using the power and treasury of the Russian state to bankroll canonical intrusions into territories that don't tow the line was a bridge too far. It has introduced an element of menace into the MP's relationship with other Churches. The MP and EP are both at varying stages of alienation from the other Churches. I think the recent talks between Serbia and Antioch are illustrative of something that is beginning: The other Churches are tired of Moscow and Constantinople's mess, and a "non-aligned" movement is beginning to take shape.
I never suggested that the MP's excommunication of the CP resulted in its ouster from the Church. "Breaking communion" is excommunication. The MP does not have the authority to declare the CP graceless on its own. It would take some greater council to do that. The MP is not putting other local churches in that position. They feel like they've done all they can do by severing communion with the schismatics. The OCU are schismatics and, by canon law, those who recognize them step into their shoes. Moscow only did what it had to do in order to preserve its own integrity regarding the Phanar's encroachment on its territory in the Ukraine.
DeleteThe MP is by no means "stuck" with the Phanar. Having excommunicated it, it need take no further notice of it unless and until it repents, which is highly unlikely. Alexandria is the same way. Schismatics have no canonical territory. That is the real effect of the MP's excommunication of all those who have recognized the OCU: I.e., the MP no longer respects their alleged or historical jurisdictions as canonical since they have become schismatic. Look for the ROC to extend its presence in Turkey, North Africa and anywhere else that the schismatics have parishes that apply to the MP.
So instead of severing Communion and pushing repeatedly for reconciliation (either one on one or pan-Orthodox), while respecting canonical boundaries, the MP unilaterally acts as if the EP (and Alexandria) have no grace. They then weasel on the issue through technicalities and legalities, essentially saying that on paper we can't declare that, but we are going with the "graceless schismatic" line anyway.
DeleteIf the EP is still Orthodox, the MP doesn't get to do whatever they want. That is what has the other Churches horrified. The MP grossly escalated the situation, which is neither Orthodox or Christian.
"Did what I had to"...the hymn of the guilty conscience, along with "just following orders."
It is a symptom of the Z virus which has infected Russian Orthodoxy. The Gospel is nowhere to be found.
I don't think you understand that we are at war with the West, NATO, the US and that agency of the US State Department known as the Phanar. The question of jurisdiction in the Ukraine was settled centuries ago and cannot be revisited, certainly not unilaterally by any Eastern Pope.
DeleteWar is rough business. It causes people to do rough things. For example, in keeping with the interests of the US, it caused the Phanar to start a fake, schismatic, anti-Russian pseudo-church in the Ukraine, one which has persecuted the canonical church there, assaulting its people and clerics, seizing its properties.
That is rough.
And, of course, a war is not waged by just one side. The other side gets a vote. Thus, when the Greek local churches recognize the OCU, they become combatants. I suppose it's all very tragic, but it is absolutely inevitable given Greek commitments to the US and against their own Orthodox brethren. They do it from hubris, from dhimmi syndrome, believing that they are licking the right boots to keep them afloat and at the helm. But, again tragically, they are on the wrong side of history. And it's only going to get worse - much worse - for them.
Russian Orthodoxy is close to being most of Orthodoxy. Our Serbian brothers seem to be standing fast with us. Antioch and Jerusalem as well have not turned on us as of yet. While it is true that no one else has broken communion with the CP, it is also true that no one else's canonical territory was invaded by the CP.
And, frankly, the CP has already apostatized from Orthodoxy to Western Liberalism. That is why they think they can create and dispense holy orders with the stroke of a pen. That is why they are much more amenable to Western liberal morality than other local churches. We are actually being extraordinarily restrained in merely breaking communion while not asserting that the schismatics in the Phanar are without grace. Even some in the Church of Greece have made the detailed case that Bartholomew is a flagrant heretic. Of course, this petition has not been considered by the synod for obvious reasons.
Time will resolve all these matters. Bartholomew and his synod are committed tools of their Anglo-Saxon overlords. They will not budge from the orders they are given. Soon they will do things which place them clearly outside of Orthodoxy to the point that the rest of the Church will disown them.
It is only a matter of time. The die is cast.
Well well Mikhail Voin, yours is a most interesting response! As an American I won't be liked by many of my countrymen for saying this, but much of what you say is the truth. America, or at least the (modernist "Liberals") elitists who run all of our institutions including the government, are "at war" with Russia. They *need* the Russian Bear (no matter the reality of its actual threat) to justify the $military industrial complex$, forever war, post WWII "world order", and everything else which $lines their pockets$ on the labor and *blood* of the rest of America. Our Lockean liberal political order is broken, if it actually ever worked for the "average" American. If it was healthy, our political class would be much more interested in our basic order (e.g. our own border) than waging a proxy war against Russia via Ukraine. This situation is not going to change in the near term either, as both the left and the right in America are deeply committed to the status quo.
DeleteYour also right in that the EP became a tool and captive to American/Euro interests to a significant degree after the population exchange of 1923 emptied his flock and thus his influence among his own people. The EP *at the same time* (i.e. the last 100 years or so), as an institution and intellectual culture, indulged entirely too much in modern/western theological anthropology, though not really western ecclesiology as so many (Russian's in particular) claim. The EP now has a significant number of bishops and whole well funded institutions (i.e. Fordham's 'Orthodox Studies Institute') that exist to *reform* Orthodoxy into an image of western Cartesian anthropology.
Were your wrong I think is your confidence in "the judgement of history", which is really the judgement of God. Neither you nor I know how Orthodoxy in the Greek world nor "jurisdictionalism" within Euro/NA will turn out. I'm the first to admit that's Orthodoxy is not doing well - it is being swallowed up quite efficiently by western secularism, at least as a cultural force and "institution".
Beyond even this, your without any sense of irony when you (rightly) point out the EP's captivity without mentioning how the MP is as much a tool of "Putism" and Russian Nationalism as the EP is of Liberal Globalism. You also seem to think that Russian ethnonationalism is somehow "canonical" and normative for Orthodox ecclesiology. The fact is that Orthodox "canonical" structure has been broken since the fall of the Roman Empire, and this or that historical adaptation is merely ad hoc. Russian's in particular throw around the word "canonical" as if it actually has a meaning that it has not had for about 1300 years now.
I'm not sure which is the greater curse - to Eat/Pray/Love (joke people ;)) under the MP, under the EP, or any other Orthodox "Patriarch/jurisdiction" for that matter. After 30 years as an Orthodox convert I have seriously considered returning to 'continuing Anglicanism', as for all their faults, at least the average man/women standing (in their pews ;) has a clue as to who and what they are...they are very "English" ;)
In any case, it was good to hear your perspective!
Don't you think that the "judgment of God" will accord with the Orthodox conception of Him?
DeleteThere is no "Putinism". Russia is a dominant party republic - a federation. The ROC, by and large, freely supports the actions of the Russian state in the Ukraine. But we should step back a moment and consider the two sides' allegiances. For the sake of argument, let us say that the MP's allegiance is to Russian (Christian) Nationalism.
So what?
You may recall the motto of the Romanovs from the 19th century: Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality. No one would suggest that autocracy is incompatible with Orthodoxy, no one with any knowledge of Orthodox history. Nationality, so long as it does not descend into outright racism, is also not a problem for the Church. Most churches are national churches organized along ethnolinguistic lines.
Now, contrast that with the allegiance of the Phanar and the Greek local churches which you yourself described as "Liberal Globalism" and which I would describe as "Western Liberalism". Liberalism is not Christian; nationalism very well can be. And therein lies all the difference. After all, no one is criticizing the Greeks for their ethnocentricity. They're entitled to it, by all means.
But Russia has a history, you see. The official title of the MP is: "Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and of all Rus'", all Rus' being the three Russias - Great Russia, Little Russia (the Ukraine) and White Russia (Belarus). This is long standing practice over centuries. One people - the Eastern Slavs. One history, stemming from Kievan Rus'.
The Phanar's mistake, as was America's, was to stick its nose into an intra-Slavic conflict. When the dust settles, the Ukrainians will hate the Phanar and America for the carnage unleashed by the coup and the war. Don't believe me? Look at the Chechens. The US sponsored them during the Chechen Wars against Russia. Now they are a vanguard force in the Russian army and loyal to a fault.
The Ukrainians will wake up to the fact that they have been used mercilessly for the ends of others. When they do, there will be hell to pay.
"The Ecumenical Patriarchate is not going to join the Catholics. The homosexual couples blessing and gay "marriage" debacle in Greece has ensured that (if there ever was a chance of it happening in the first place, which I doubt). "
ReplyDeleteWhy (honest question)?
The "EP is about to declare unia" is a common refrain from slavic Orthodoxy, but it ignores several realities - not the least of which is the EP's desperation to not only survive as a viable patriarchate, but be "first among equals" and a institution of high status within western culture.
Are you asking me why?
ReplyDeleteThe Patriarchate is torn between its ties to the "Ecumenical"/Academic world and its history as THE Greek Patriarchate. The Patriarchate couldn't go against all of the Greek Churches on the homosexual relationships question (which was overwhelmingly negative), and so they issued a statement declaring the impossibility of recognizing such relationships. They were criticized for being last, and chided for being "dragged into" stating the Orthodox position, but I think it is indicative of the division within the Patriarchate itself. Deacon John Chryssavgis has written another article attacking the Church of Greece's position on Public Orthodoxy, where he speaks for the "Fordhamite wing." On the other side, you have Mt. Athos, Northern Greece, and Crete. One consequence of homosexual marriage coming to Greece is that I think in the long run, it will push Greek Orthodoxy away from "Ecumenism." Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus will no longer be dismissed as a lone crank. Pious Greeks are riled up, and so HAH Bartholomew has to tread lightly. Greek solidarity is still of tremendous importance to the Patriarchate, and in that respect, this gay marriage fight may have been the very thing that killed any plan for Union with Catholics, if such a thing was even seriously being considered.
Yes David, I meant to post as reply to your comment. What you say here I found enlightening:
Delete"Greek solidarity is still of tremendous importance to the Patriarchate..."
So for as long as Crete/N. Greece church have a culture of non-modern anthropology, this will balance out EP's core constituency of EP/GOA "progressive"/modern anthropology (I don't believe Athos actually should be weighted all that much because they are monastics who can be written off as the alternative culture they in fact are).
Well, for as long as it lasts. The thing it in all likelihood will not last. At some point, whether it is the next generation or the next, the 'traditional' Christian Greeks (I mean in the church, not the larger outside society) will be overwhelmed. Secularity, modernity, and its attendant anthropology has been utterly successful - it has yet to suffer a single significant defeat.
I do believe you could be very well right in your analysis that EP/GOA has suffered a set back in their long running adoption of modern anthropology, but I believe it will be a short term "push back" and not a long term (or even medium term) problem for them.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Dear commenters,
ReplyDeleteThe Church is not about the carnal machinations of Moscow and Constantinople.
She is not doomed to be crushed beneath to the steady advance of modernity.
She is the manifestation of Christ and his Gospel on earth, and always will be. She is a world of joy and peace for all who fully enter into her. As Orthodox Christians, we have been given all the tools we need to experience this reality every day.
May we all have a blessed and fruitful Lent and Pascha.