In conclusion, it should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was captial of the empire. Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Forth Ecumenical Council proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Alexandria was designated third, because this city was then the great center of learning; and following him were the Bishop of Antioch and Jerusalem. If the position of honor were determined not by the political but by the religious significance of the city, does it not stand to reason that the primacy of honor would be reserved for Jerusalem, the Mother Church of Christendom? There would be no dispute in that case, for our Lord lived there, was crucified there and arose from the tomb there. Moreover, the first Christian Church was founded in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.

These are the true and accurate facts as they are brought to light by the authentic documents that make up Ecclesiastical History.

(Quoted in “The Church Fathers on Love In Truth,” by Constantine Zalalas, pages 15-16.)

Perhaps Constantinople should exhibit the virtue of humility, recognize the reality of the political insignificance of the See, and pass the “first among equals” honor to a more representative patriarchate.

As a member of the Greek Church in America, I understand the extremely distressing situation the Phanar finds itself in Turkey. However, having neo-papal delusions of grandeur is not the solution, nor is daydreaming about past glories.

1 Samuel 8:6-7: “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.’ So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.’”.

History does not support the novel interpretation that the Phanar is selling on canon 28. It does not predate 1908. As I have posted on the Orthodox history blog, the 19th century is full of examples of Constantinople being scolded for asserting Ultramontanist claims.

Btw, the Romanian Patriarchate DOES in fact assert just what Fr. Makarios (another mouthpiece of the EP) claims. So what does the Phanar make of that?

I do agree with the Archmandirite in one thing, canon 28 is unambigous: it clearly predicates Constantinople’s importance on it being the capital of the empire. It is no longer the capital of anything.

“They are called to enter that sacred space where Church Fathers such as Basil the Great, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Gregory the Theologian, and Saint John Chrysostom live, and to be inspired by them. This is what we mean when we pronounce, “we who follow the fathers,”” Interesting he should bring that up, as no sooner had Constantinople been made autocephalous and its early decades, it exiled St. Gregory and St. John from its throne, and was a hotbed of Arianism against which St. Basil and St. Gregory fought against.

St. Justin (Popovich) of Celije wrote “The Supreme Value and the Infallabile Criterion”. The words speak for themselves when it comes to primacy, puff-acy and importancy:

“Every kind of European humanity, from the most primitive to the most sensitive, from fetishist to papist, is based on the faith of man, as he himself is, within his own, given, psycho-physical empirical state and historicity. Indeed, the essence of every humanism is man = homo. Summarized in its ontology, every humanism is nothing more than hominism (homo-hominis). Man is the supreme value, the all-value. Man is the highest criterion, the all-criterion, “the measure of all things is man”. In short, this is the essence of every humanism, every hominism. Thus, all the types of humanism, all hominisms are, after all is said and done, of an idolatrous, polytheist origin.

“Every European humanism, from pre-Renaissance, Renaissance and thereafter – protestant, philosophical, religious, social, scientific, cultural and political – strove (knowingly or unknowingly) and continue to incessantly strive, for one thing: to replace the faith in the God-human (Christ) with a faith in man; to replace the Gospel according to man, the philosophy according to the God-human with the philosophy according to man, the culture according to the God-human with culture according to man. In short, to replace life according to the God-human with life according to man.

“This was taking place for centuries, until up to the past century, 1870, when, during the Vatican’s first synod, all of the above were recapitulated, in the dogma of the Pope’s infallibility. From that point on, this dogma came to be the central dogma of Papism. This is why in our day, in the 2nd Vatican Council, the ‘inviolable’ and ‘irreformable’ status of this dogma was so fervently discussed and supported. This dogma is of an epoch-making significance that can affect the entire fate of Europe, and especially in the apocalyptic times that it has begun to enter.

“Through this dogma, all the European humanisms acquired their ideal and their idol. Man had now been proclaimed as the supreme Divinity, an all-divine being. The European humanist pantheon had now acquired its Jupiter.

“Sincerity, is the language of the Truth. The 20th-century dogma on Papal infallibility is nothing short of a rebirth of idolatry and polytheism. A renaissance of idolatrous evaluations and critiques.

“There can be no compromise, between a world that conscientiously “remains in wickedness”, and a person that voluntarily follows the God-human Christ. A person who follows the God-human Christ cannot make any compromises detrimental to the Evangelical Truth, with a person who justifies such things and promotes them to a dogma. This is forever an issue of a decisive and extremely critical dilemma and choice: either the God-human, or the plain human.

“The ‘infallible’ human, and opposite him, the “supreme sinner” human; humility on the one hand and haughtiness on the other.

“The incomparable song-bird of the God-human Gospel, saint John the Chrysostom, evangelizes the following: “The foundation of our philosophy is humility”. Humility is the foundation of our philosophy regarding life and the world, regarding time and eternity, regarding the God-human and the Church, whereas the foundation of every type of humanism – even those that have been elevated to a dogma – is haughtiness and a faith in the word of man, in the mind of man, in the logic of man. Haughtiness converted that most radiant Lucifer into a devil. Haughtiness is an incurable sickness of the mind by the devil. Within this sickness are found (and from it, spring forth) all the other diabolical evils.”

if I may humbly disagree with you. The idea of the “Pentarchy” is more mythical than real. The golden age of Pentarchic thought was in the High Middle Ages, long after the original Pentarchy had ceased to exist. During the first Christian millennium, nobody talked about a Pentarchy as a theological/ecclesiological necessity as such. Even Rome’s patriarchal status came about in fits and starts. Most all regional churches headed by metropolitans were autocephalous.

As far as Moscow being the Third Rome, this was a pious fiction but no more of a fiction than Constantinople being the Second Rome. Or Rome being the primus inter pares in the first place. This was all because of political exigencies. Moscow’s claim was certainly valid during the Romanov dynasty when Russia laid claim to a vast international empire. For the record, I don’t think that anybody’s claim to being a “Rome” in the first place rises to the level of canonical truth. The placement of dioceses and metropolitan seats was based on political contingencies, nothing more.

Lastly, I unfortunately must disagree with the idea that we need a central authority in Orthodoxy. Therein lies papalism. If we followed strict canonical protocols, every nation that had an Orthodox population would have functioning administrative centers which could serve as clearinghouses of information regarding baptisms, marriages, ordinations, etc. Moreover, there would be no territorial messes like what we have now as no foreign bishop would be allowed to exercize universal authority over emigrants from his land. He would simply say to emigres: “There’s already a church in America/Germany/wherever, go join it.”

I think that if a real need arises for some sort of international clearinghouse and/or juridical authority, then the center at Chambesy could be turned into a standing council that meets throughout the year to hear reports on new church formation. Perhaps this inter-Orthodox council could be comprised of auxilary bishops from every national church with the Constantinopolitan bishop serving as its permanent chairman.

For those lands which have no Orthodox populations at all, then we could revert to canonical authority again. It is incumbent upon the bishop of the diocese closest to the land in question to evangelize there. Once he does so and the Orthodox presence becomes more significant, and once the thresshold of three dioceses are created, then he can apply to the standing pan-Orthodox commission for autonomy (or his mother church).

Since we’re on this subject, there should be automatic “triggers” which mandate autonomy once certain objectives have been met.

Anyway, please excuse my verbosity and my presumption. I realize that you are a priest and are more qualified to comment on such things.

George the sinner

First to address the issue of “territories.” According to the Phanar and its propagandists (as well as certain revisionists), the Church of Greece had an “active” missionary role in America. So it’s obvious that the Archons haven’t gotten the memo, otherwise, they wouldn’t have posted this drivel. Let us not forget, that the EP we are led to believe “recognized” the authority of the Church of Greece as such when in 1908 he declared that all Greek parishes belonged henceforth to it (and not to the EP). So which is it: does Greece have a role to play or not? And if not -that is if we’re being consistent–were those churches “canonical”?

But of course that is the point isn’t it? We’re not really being consistent. We are engaging in magical thinking, what else are you going to call it when the Phanar makes things up as it goes along? But let us humor ourselves and be consistent and engage in a little bit of Euclidian logic:

This of course leaves aside the point that this transfer was itself uncanonical as the EP was forced to do so by its Turkish overlords. This is an example of “canons for thee, but nor for me.”

Second, it becomes increasingly apparent that there never was an “active missionary role” that the churches of the Balkans undertook in North America. This view is laughable in itself for those who actually know the circumstances. Many of the priests who came were themselves economic migrants and/or had come to dead-ends back in the Old Country. (And more than a few were under canonical or ethical clouds.) Yes, the majority received antimensions, so technically speaking, they were under the authority of a bishop. But in what meaningful fashion can this be regarded as missionary activity? It is only by stretching the meaning of “missionary” in almost a gymnastic sense that we can suppose so.

Simply allow the Church in the US to find our own way to unity (since the non-US bishops clearly don’t want to help). Have all Orthodox bishops get together on a regular basis and really talk to one another (like as St. Catherine’s Monastary in the Siani or on Mt. Athos for instance rather than a resor town).

Frankly, right now I think all the bishops have gone mostly mad with their power. I have trouble trusting any of them.

That said I do think that we do need a central authority in the Church. I say this not only because it is increasingly the case that what one Church does has a effect on a Sister Church but also because we need to speak with one voice. For example, potential converts can go shopping for their preferred method of being received–want to be (re-) baptized? chrismated” confessed? These are all possible. You can even be chrismated here and baptized (but not re-chrismated) later over there.

And our witness on moral matters is also compromised by our lack of a unified voice. There comes a point where asserting to a hurt and lost world that the Church teaches what it always taught begins to ring hollow. Those looking for the Gospel shouldn’t have to check footnotes in a history text or have to adjudicate among the voices of various Orthodox jurisdictions.

Like it or not we are facing the same challenge that Rome faced and did not resolve until the mid-19th century at Vatican I–and that resolution is not always as definitive as it appears. Empirically, if not theologically, there is a sense in which we are one diocese–I understand why theologically this isn’t true. But the events recorded in this post suggest, we have to resolve the question of the universal governance of the Church–while we reject the modern Catholic teaching of the papacy we do as yet have an Orthodox alternative save our rather wishful assertion that we are a communion of local Churches.

In Christ,

+FrG

“You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles dominate them, and their men of high positions exercise power over them. You should be just like them. Whoever wants to become great among you should make everyone else his servant and whoever wants to be first among you should assert his demands and prerogatives.”

. . . because the compelling witness of real moral authority – like “giving your life as a ransom for many,” (the rest of the actual verse) — well, THAT wouldn’t change the course of the world.

P.S. How does one become an Archon? Is the honor given for the power of one’s spiritual witness or is it conferred for some other (political or financial) reason?

Okay, now I will have to really repent.