(Church of Alexandria) - The ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria expresses its deepest sorrow at the synodal decision of the Russian Patriarchate to establish an Exarchate within the normal limits of the jurisdiction of the Ancient Church of Alexandria, a decision taken in the midst of the Nativity of Christ and the divine Epiphany, during which Christ the King of Peace is projected.
The Patriarchate of Alexandria will continue to carry out its pastoral duties towards the flock which has been entrusted to it by the Lord, which fall under the spiritual legacies of the great Greek Fathers of the Church, who, according to the modern Russian theologian the late Fr. George Florovsky, left an indelible mark on Orthodox Theology and the Church.
The decision of the Russian Patriarchate will be discussed at an upcoming session of the Synod of οθρ Patriarchate, at which time relevant decisions will be taken.
In the Patriarchate, 30th December 2021
From the Chief Secretariat of the Holy Synod
Thursday, December 30, 2021
Alexandria responds to Russian intrusion on its sovereignty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I was just trying to imagine how I would explain the symbolism of that middle paragraph (Greek Fathers, Flovorsky, etc.) to someone outside of Orthodoxy , how that symbolism is overcome by other ecclesial realities, not the least of which is the breakup of the Roman Empire...lol, it's all seems so *shallow*, no wonder it's all collapsing and yet it does not seem to matter ;)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWill Alexandria break communion with Russia over this?
ReplyDeleteThey could and very well might, but I don't think they will. I think Patriarch Theodore may even give these priests full canonical release. Why? For several reasons.
First of all, Africa is desperately poor. The Alexandrian Patriarchate is mostly supported by the Church of Greece, which is also poor. Sometimes priests in Africa aren't even getting paid. So the positive side of Russia stepping in is that hopefully it will bring more money and support flowing into Africa. That would be fantastic if Russia builds some church temples and gives priests there a decent wage.
Secondly, the Alexandrian Patriarchate has not broken communion with the Church of Russia, and it has not expressed any interest in doing so. There is nothing to gain for them by breaking communion, even with the Church of Russia setting up an Exarchate in Africa. So, I think Patriarch Theodore may very well take the high road here. That would send a much stronger message of Orthodox Christianity than going into schism. Of course, the new "Russian African" priests will quite sadly be forced by their Russian bishop to go into schism with the Patriarch of Alexandria. Hello, does this remind anyone of the Donatist heresy that used to be so prevalent in North Africa centuries ago?
Thirdly, there's the absolute ridiculousness of a Moscow Exarchate in Africa. It's not a sustainable idea, and it's obviously not canonical. It's pure "Moscow as Third Rome" nonsense. It can't be taken that seriously, but hey, perhaps we can still enjoy it while it lasts.
:)
I've worked personally with 5 - 10 people every weekend for a month to prepare and execute a parish's annual ethnic festival in order to net $30,000. Two other members worked a lot more hours but wouldn't say how much, after telling us they would never do it again.
DeleteI visited a family member's suburban Baptist church and reviewed financials from the plate collections from two morning services on a single Sunday: $28,000. They had four medical clinics in Africa.
Orthodoxy in the US is not even off the ground. I can only imagine the situation in Sub-Saharan Africa.
the reality is that moscow became the third rome, and i shudder to think where the eastern orthodox church world wide would be today with out them. i ave been thanked first hand by midde eastern christians for the russian church protecting them and ntheir churches over the past the 250 yeers.
DeleteTwo wrongs don’t make a right.
ReplyDeleteStole the words right from out of my mouth.
DeleteIf you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (Galatians 5:15)
ReplyDeleteA cogent argument could be made that the EP has set the Church on fire by his actions in Ukraine. But that is a poor excuse for the Russians throwing gasoline on the flames.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMoscow's position is that those local churches that have recognized the OCU have no rights and so it is entitled to sow discord and disunity there. To plan and execute this schism in the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Moscow relied in part on the services of Vadym Novynskyi, a Russian oligarch, turned naturalized Ukrainian citizen, turned pro-Russian opposition party leader, turned Metropolitan Onufry's protodeacon. Overlooking at ordination the uncanonical nature of a political figure being ordained, this is the kind of person that Moscow sent to "save the African people from communion with schismatics." Did he go to Africa with his Metropolitan's blessing?
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the schism occured within the poor Patriarchate of Alexandria and not in another local church is in itself strange. Whether these schismatic African clergymen are more sensitive to ecclesiology than the monks of Mount Athos who did no such thing or if there is something else going on is something worth investigating.
I expect several pseudo-theological justifications of the schism to be published in the coming days - a sign of insecurity - in order to excuse what was obviously retributive and unChristian.
Marcele - I'm not sure it makes any more sense for a Greek bishop hanging on in Egypt in competition with the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch to exercise jurisdiction over parishes in the African interior than it does for a Russian bishop in far away Moscow. As noted, this probably has more to do with priests needing regular paychecks so they can afford to live in the African interior.
DeleteIt would be nice if the Patriarchs could get together and hash these things out but there's no longer an Emperor to arrest them and keep them locked up until they've reached a consensus.
The local churches need to respect Orthodox theology and abandon the ecclesiology of ethnophyleticism that has become dominant since the 19th century. Actually, this occured much sooner in Russia, when Tsar Peter the Great adopted the European Protestant national Church model. Today, the Statue of the Russian Orthodox Church actually states in its 3rd article that the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate extends to any country. I take the clause as intending to say that the ROC is to be found wherever a Russian is but the clause is written more broadly than that. So here we essentially have a statement of universal jurisdiction which is exactly what the MP charges against the EP and it is this self-understanding of jurisdiction that explains puzzling acts such as granting autocephaly to the OCA but then also establishing its own parishes within the territory of the OCA.
DeleteWith every new autocephaly that the Church was compelled to grant in order to maintain unity, it further painted itself into a corner ecclesiologically due to the real danger that the local churches would align themselves with nation over the other churches that they were in communion with, leading to competing nationalist ecclesiologies.
An emperor having bishops tortured and exiled would not solve the problem since it is rooted at all levels and not just the episcopate. Until traditional ecclesiology is reclaimed (common positions today don't even correspond with the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX) and until the local churches can free themselves from subordination to state, we will continue to encounter the same problems over and over.
here is the reality of life,,, the eastern orthodox christian church in africa has a lot of competition from the roman cqtholics and protestants. if the patriarch of alexandria is not up to the competition or has the financial rewources to retain membership and grow the church, and moscow does, then because we here in the usa are so etho-entric and stupid that we are not united and washington has not becomethe 4th rome and we do not have an american partiarch, does it not make sense that the third rome, with its resoures take over and run with the ball? this is not a russian or greek issue at all, and not not make it so and make an unnecessary diversion - the eastern orthodox christian church in africa is hemmoraging and needs assistance. alexandria has fumbled thre bal, so who is best suited to come to its aid and make the touchdown? the Russian Orthodox chruch, the roman catholic, church, or the protestant church?
DeleteIt is unfortunate in the extreme that Moscow, the only local church (except possibly Serbia) to recognise publicly the heretical nature of Constantinople's 'primus sine paribus' doctrine, is using the resulting division to advance its political interests. In Ukraine, Moscow should give Onufry's jurisdiction autocephaly to avoid the impression that the schism is about Russian hegemony. In Africa, although offering canonical protection to clergy unwilling to serve under a Greek-dominated and now heretical administration is good in principle, Moscow should not be setting up a 'Russian' exarchate, because that too looks like Russian imperialism (and what will happen if Theodore repents?). The Russians, Serbs, and whoever else is willing should hold a council, depose Bartholomew and Theodore if they refuse to recant their heresy, and elect new canonical patriarchs. Alexandria already has two; a third would not be unheard of. In the mean time, it should be made clear that the African Exarchate is a temporary structure, and it should be run by Africans only.
ReplyDeleteNorman (Dionysius) Redington
Lubbock TX
Norman, why should Russia give Ukraine autocephaly now? At the time of the 2016 Crete Council, Patriarch Bartholomew gave Russia two extra years to resolve the Ukrainian schism, hoping that Russia would grant autocephaly. Nothing happened. What makes the present circumstances any different?
DeleteWhere was it ever said at the time that they were given 2 years? Sounds like a fiction invented after the fact.
DeleteJckstraw72, it was in June 2016 that, by a majority vote of the Ukrainian Parliament, a letter was sent to Patriarch Bartholomew requesting he rescind the "Act of 1686" because the Metropolitan of Kiev was in canonical violation of that act's key condition, that he commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew first.
DeleteWhile Ukrainian autocephaly wasn't on the agenda at the Crete Council, it was a topic brought up by Church of Russia. Moscow specifically requested that Ukrainian autocephaly not be brought up at Crete, and of course it wasn't. While the discussion between Patriarchs Kyrill and Bartholomew were private, it was clear that Patriarch Bartholomew was intending to grant Ukrainian autocephaly if Russia wouldn't do it first. The request made by the Ukrainian Parliament wasn't rejected. It was welcomed. However, we can see that Constantinople was willing to sit on it for two years in hopes that Russia could resolve the matter instead. Unfortunately, Russia did nothing.
But where is the evidence that the Russian Church was notified that they had 2 years to solve it before Constantinople would step in?
DeleteWhether or not it was a publicly made two year notice, the Russian Church was in fact given two years before Constantinople followed the Ukrainian Parliament's request.
DeleteHow long was the EP was supposed to wait? The schism began in 1991. The EP understood that it had a canonically acceptable period of 30 years to resolve the schism. Russia was just trying to "run out the clock" by stalling.
The implication is that the Russian Church was given a warning - "Fix this in two years or I'll step in!" - and yet chose to do nothing, thereby justifying Patriarch Bartholomew.
DeleteSo where is the evidence that any such warning was ever given?
One possibility David B. is that the MP really believes its own "federation" ecclesiology and position, which is directly related to your point #3, and indirectly to #2. Certainly the MP Very Online do. While the average MP partisan's theological/historical ignorance can be excused, the Russian Church can not readily so, at least until you realize it has spent almost its entire life (a 1000 years) practically separated from Imperial Orthodoxy.
ReplyDeleteStill, does not the Russian Church grok what a federation ideation of Unam Sanctam really means? If they do, they don't seem to care, so perhaps their hubris really is believing they are the center of Orthodoxy spiritually and practically...
Perhaps the MP's motivation at this point is "use it or lose it."
ReplyDeleteThat is, everyone knows the old order centered around a few Greco-Roman cities in the Mediterranean is done, and the EP proceeds to assert first-without-equal in the ensuing vacuum, and the MP reacts with, not so fast. With everything up for grabs you either act like you matter or, you don't matter.
It's actually an anarchic system, not a canonical one. The MP is going to pay priests and recruit cultural followers in Africa, and dare the Greeks to keep up.
I don't think at this point there's a fixed anchor from which to decree either side wrong. After all, North and South America and Europe have been divvied up in overlapping exarchates for decades, in blatant canonical violation.
The Pope of Rome had a good response to the fall of Rome and got in on the ground floor of surgent Franco-German monarchical power: just decree yourself the Pope of the whole universe. So long as Europe ruled the planet, it worked. Now, the Pope is mostly a cheerleader for US State Department-approved causes.
We are all in undiscovered country at this point.
If the old order is gone, why would the MP resist Ukrainian autocephaly? Is there a Russian Empire or Soviet Union that Ukraine still belongs to? By the MP's own logic, Ukrainian autocephaly is necessary and inevitable and so attempting to punish those who recognize this such as happened in Africa does not exactly help its case.
ReplyDeleteJake,
ReplyDeleteI believe the reason that the MP is pushing the federation of national churches ecclesiology is that they understand that they are the main beneficiaries of this arrangement since they can resolve disputes with the full backing of the state's resources such as capital, secret services, hackers, media, etc. There is simply nothing like it and honest Russian bishops can become its victims just like anybody else: https://www.rferl.org/a/whats-behind-fsb-case-against-a-russian-orthodox-bishop/31004285.html
The Russian Church is likely just doing what is necessary for it to survive in Russia. As long as the ROC supports Putin's civic religion of "Russkiy Mir" then everything is fine in Russia between church and state.
ReplyDeleteIt is notable that the Russian Church is now following much the same path as under Joseph Stalin post-WWII when it tried to convince all the other Orthodox churches to recognize it's pre-eminence at the 1948 Pan-Orthodox Council in Moscow. That was really when the competing split in alliances between Moscow and Constantinople began.
The present trajectory of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate is much the same as the Charlemagne-created Second Rome, the so-called "Holy Roman Empire". With this African Exarchate, the Russian Church is similarly becoming just another competing "Holy Roman Empire", a Third Rome with it's own Pope who pillages and takes advantage of the weaknesses of Orthodox territory.
The Federation model that's been adopted by Russia out of "practicality" and "circumstance" is only intended to be transitory though. The end goal of this is really the same as Charlemagne's Second Rome. As you point out, "Who is acting in a Papal way here?"
ReplyDeleteMarcele - in an anarchic order, again, you either act like you matter or you don't matter. Maybe the Russians regard Ukraine as a hilariously corrupt, failing state that doesn't merit an autocephalous Church and the EP as a vestigial dinosaur in a Greek ghetto who has no business deciding anything; I don't know. Sovereigns get to make their own reality. The Pope of Rome decided he's the Pope of the whole planet, and acts like it. It worked out pretty well for him, until Europe committed suicide in two world wars.
ReplyDeleteIt would be nice if all this were written down somewhere and there were a Highest Court of Autocephaly presiding over it all, but there isn't. The American Churches have been uncanonical for a couple of centuries and nobody's ever done anything about it.
To put the EP argument simply---in theory, all bishops are "equal." In reality, they are not, because their sphere of responsibility and authority are different.
ReplyDeleteIn reality, the "Ecumenical" Patriarch presides over a Greek ghetto in Istanbul supported by remittances from Greek ethno-nationalists in America, not that there's anything wrong with that.
For me, the problem I have with arguments that go "in theory all are equal, in practice they are not" is that it starts to sound too close for comfort to "all animals are equals, but some are more equal than others."
ReplyDeleteI should note that some of my problem is rooted in having grown up under communism, where that played out in everyday life
ReplyDeletecome on everyone, first of all we all need to admit that our patriarchs and bishops cannot play nicely in the sand box. they espound the fact that they are orthodox and follow orthodox canon law but forget that orthodox is an adjective meant to desdribe the noun christian. and as such they need to follow the teachings of jesus and believe the teachings of jesus, and live the teachings of jesus. so where is the chistian love, brotherhood, and humility? oops sorry you are orthodox, not orthodox christian, sorry! we have become the laughing stock of the internatiuinal christin community. we do not work cohesievely together and love to cause splits and schisms - aren't these splits and schisms the work of the devil --- we wear black cassocks and operate in a black way, time to let the light of christ show through, time to love, forgive, work to a common goal and leave the baggage that was collected over 2000 years at the curb, forge ahead in unity and love. and start wearing white. the subtle signals we send, and not so subtle, are very telling - i grieve, truly grieve
ReplyDeletewho cares who is first, second or third? who has earned the right to lead? who can be the best leader? the time of the divine right of kings is over, i grieve because i do not see a unifying leader among us. petty politics and byzantine intrigue prevail, our leaders are like nero, they fiddle, while the faithful become disenchanted, the faithful leave, the faithful become embarassed, time to lay aside the externaities of the faith, and focus on the internaities and the teachings of jesus. who among us, the faithful, the clergy, the bishops, can the beatitudes describe? or even any who the golden rule can describe? if there was just one, there would be hope for us, and based on these antics of our leadership, i see no hope as being there on the horizon,,, so i grieve, and shed a tear.
ReplyDeletePlease forgive me, but your comment could easily be said by a Roman Catholic and/or Protestant.
Delete//The Tomos was signed with the best of intentions//
ReplyDeleteYour comemnt is completely correct except for this. The tomos was always about attacking the MP, and everyone knows it.
David B., after the fall of communism in 1991, the EP contacted Patriarch Alexey II requesting that he restore the old order whereby the Metropolitan of Kiev would commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew first. Patriarch Alexey refused.
ReplyDeleteWas this refusal not an attack on the EP?
However, the schismatic Metropolitan Filaret of Kiev did commemorate Patriarch Bartholomew first. Filaret also made attempts to have his ecclesial case heard by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Those attempts were of course rebuffed, that is, until civil war broke out in 2014 over Russia's annexation of Crimea. That's when the EP changed it viewpoint about the appropriateness of Moscow's guardianship over Ukraine (the 1686 Act).
Because their is no King of Ukraine, a majority vote from Ukraine's Parliament requesting the 1686 Act be repealed was sufficient. It is not unheard of for a King or ruler to contact the Ecumenical Patriarchate to restore order, especially when the local church is in some canonical violation and won't listen or respond to the EP.
Soon after the 1686 Act was rescinded in 2018, the EP set up an exarchate in Ukraine by sending two bishops. That exarchate formed a unity council, reconciling the schismatics along with two bishops of the UOC-MP (although all were invited). The unity council elected Metropolitan Epiphany, who then became the head of an autonomous Ukrainian Church which lasted for about a month. Then autocephaly was granted. It did happen very quickly, but it also happened in a very methodical way.
ReplyDeleteLOL. I remember those two bishops; they actually came from the US but were about as American as goulash. So when the nation--that is, the real country--beckoned, they answered the call. An admirable level of patriotism given that Ukraine is a failing state or, the conspiratorial side of me wonders, State Department money.
DeleteAny way, one would think it would be obvious by now that the Greeks, Ukrainians, Russians, Lebanese et al. do not become members of the American nation; they carry their nation with them wherever they go.
I am sorry I am so cynical about the whole mess and apologize if I offend anybody. But the canons were written for a Church deeply wedded to a vanished Greco-Roman empire. The Slavs have their own august national Churches and no longer care much what the Greek bishop in Turkey says and I don't blame them.
What is needed is an American Orthodoxy but nobody really wants to be an "American" anymore (racist, colonial relic, etc.). So Orthodoxy, wedded as it is to its Levantine, Slavic and Greek roots, remains an awkward fit for that secular strip-mall known as the United States.
We left fully American Catholic and Episcopal parishes for the universal True Faith where our children are taught to venerate Saints with no geographic, cultural or hereditary ties to them, only to find the universal True Faith's bishops are parochial ethno-nationalists. The Egyptians, Ethiopians, Assyrians and Armenians (more nationalism!) took their exits long ago.
The gates of Hell shall not prevail against us, so I have to think we are in an inter-regnum. Astounding that the old order, increasingly abstract (and hence, dysfunctional), has lasted this long.
Interregnum is the right word is it not Anti-Gnostic, it just has to be. How long can chaos last? Well let's be honest: a very very long time. So far it has lasted since the end of the Roman Empire, and even before that (i.e. Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc. etc.). I am a believer, so I believe (and live and worship) 'Ortho-doxia' that has somehow survived and thrived within this chaos, but it is all too apparent that Orthodoxy as a Church has not developed into its ecclesiastical fullness, and might not ever this side of the Eschaton.
DeleteBy the way one of those bishops to which you refer is my bishop. Your both right and wrong about the circumstances, patriotic loyalty, loyalty to ethno origins, etc. Not a public conversation, beyond saying that Christ really is at the center of "motivation", as hard as that is to believe ;)
LOL. "That's no State Department whore, that's my bishop!"
Delete(I kid, I kid. Seriously, I do not doubt that the bishops weren't motivated by sincere Christian faith in the Ukrainian Church--and whatever the MP and the loyalists may wish, I don't think this particular milk will ever be un-spilled).
I have a "pet" theological theory that the Lord has not returned because His Bride is simply not ready. May never be until the Sun goes red giant; we had our shot, and blew it.
This is not to reject the Divine plan of salvation via Ortho-doxia, only to wonder speculatively if somehow things got off-track a long time ago. So things are just going to work out a bit ... differently.
Bruce Charlton ended up in a crisis of faith after realizing that the Church qua Church simply does not exist for modern man as it did for the early Greeks, Palestinians and Slavs, and even Renaissance Europe. The Church does not occupy the same social or psychic space in secular society.
We've gone on forever about this but in sum I conclude Christianity needs a Christendom. What that ends up looking like I have no idea.
*were - apologies
Delete"...The proper procedure is for the established Church....The Ecumenical Patriarchate violated its own established precedent (Exarchate, Metropolis, Autonomy, Autocephaly) in setting up Churches, as well as the procedures laid out in the Cretan document on Autocephaly (which the EP signed...I can't reconcile the contradictions..."
ReplyDeleteProcedural economy within the Church is like procedural justice, or procedure in medicine or engineering, or procedure within your own household. It's useful until it is not, and when it is not useful it is not only "not useful" to hang on to it, it is (too often) counterproductive, even spiritually sick/abusive/evil.
The root of all this is Ukraine is really two countries and two ethno-national churches. Throw in the symbolic importance of 'Kyivan Rus' to *both* the Russian/Russian church and EP as a charism and institution, and the idea that Orthodoxy has a canonical/historical/theological 'procedural' basis to deal with it in an orderly fashion is delusional. That autocephely document is a 2nd grade level attempt at building a nuclear reactor - it is in no way up to the actual historical, political, and theological realities.
Fact is Orthodoxy has no way to even fully recognize, let alone properly deal with, Unam Sanctam, not since the break up of the Roman Empire and hardly even before that. This is true on *every level*, not the least of which is theological. Without a theological understanding and praxis (i.e. lived theology) that is congruent with the modern (or any other) reality, well it's truly as chaotic as Anti Gnostic says it is - it's all just reaction, short term institutional self interest, and 2nd graders bumbling through the dark of a complexity and reality they do not grasp.
Until Orthodoxy as a body is honest about all this, well its childish attempts at procedural consistency on anything other than the most local level is delusional. Heck, as NA/Euro "jurisdictionalism" reveals, it's delusional to a significant degree even at the local.
David B., it was after 1991 that the EP contacted Patriarch Alexey about restoring the order of the 1686 Act. Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus mentions this in an interview he gave to the Greek press regarding his decision to recognize the OCU. The EP was not trying to micromanage the situation, but it was pointing out the proper canonical order.
ReplyDeletePatriarch Bartholomew visited Kiev in 2008 and concelebrated with Patriarch Alexey. That was likely when it happened. As you have mentioned, the EP was trying to find a solution to the Ukrainian schism even in 2008.
The fact is that Bart, Theodore, Chrysostomos,Jerome, and anyone else that has entered into communion with the schismatics are now devoid of grace. All true believers must flee from them. They are under Philaret's anathema. Nevermind the heresy of First without Equals. Good riddance. Now we may all enjoy drinking Phanoriot tears.
ReplyDeleteI presume you mean Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR? Whether or not anyone has grace, only God knows. We should not ENJOY anyone's fall. Rather, we should pray for their return.
ReplyDelete