The article is thought-provoking and does a good job to show the inherent ambiguity of the term “ecumenical”. The author makes a good point when he indicates the long-established term for “Ecumenical Councils” – certainly, one could hardly equate this term with “Imperial Councils,” inasmuch as their significance is universal. To that one could add such time-honored usage as “Synaxis of the Ecumenical Teachers and Hierarchs: Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom” – it seems that here the three hierarchs are glorified as universally, not just imperially, significant. On the other hand the term “ecumenical” in the sense of “imperial” is likewise inscribed into the Church’s language from the start via the Bible (Luke 2:1, Acts 17:6). I think the issue is important inasmuch as it revolves around the significance of “The Empire” in God’s plan for mankind. To what extent is the enduring Roman imperial legacy (to which a variety of peoples and civilizations, America included, make a claim) bound up with the life of the Church militant?

George,

Maybe, maybe not.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6404/is_3_70/ai_n35650541/

The article is long, but interesting. His conclusions start on page 9, but he suggests that Pope Gregory, at least, justifiably perceived a sense of “universality” in the title.

Let’s not forget that “ecumenical” at the time it was coined simply meant “imperial,” not “universal.”

In the story to which Ilya linked, the title does contain the Russian words for Ecumenical Patriarch. Also, out of many references in the story, there is actually one place where he is referred to as the “Ecumenical Patriarch”. This is in a direct address by Met. Hilarion. Otherwise it’s “Constantinopolitan” this and that throughout.

It may not be a conscious tendency, or it may well be. It is certainly a noticeable difference from Constantinople’s self reference. Incidentally, Ilya brings up a good point. It was not just Constaninople that was referred to as “Ecumenical” in the sense of “Imperial”, the term was employed by various imperial and ecclesiastic officials to describe the authority of the bishop of Rome during the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries.

I don’t suggest that not using, or rarely using, “Ecumenical” implies rejection of Constantinople in the sense of rejecting communion or rejection of Constantinople’s status as “first among equals”; however, we know Moscow rejects their canon 28 theory and their interference on Moscow’s canonical territory. Also, we know that Moscow refers to Constantinople and the MP as “sister churches”. Under those circumstances, it is not too out in left field to assume that they are trying to be cautious in the language they use so as not to reinforce perceived errors of ecclesiology.

Theodoros, I agree with your evaluation of the situation and I have a similar attitude – one of gratitude and hope that the jurisdictional confrontation between Moscow and Constantinople is drawing to a close. It’s a little under a century since Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople took over what had previously been dioceses of the Russian Church in Finland, the Baltic lands and Poland, and did so without consultation with Moscow, in a bid to bolster his global standing in the face of the Greek catastrophe in Turkey. Thereafter the Cold War greatly exacerbated the preexisting confrontation, making Moscow-Constantinople links even more tenuous. After the collapse of the USSR we are finally living in a time where people of all local Orthodox Churches seem to have a chance to leave old delusions behind and place our sonship to God at the center of our lives.

There is a strange story with the title “Ecumenical” in Russian – at least in the 17-19th centuries in Russia it used to be common to speak of “Ecumenical Patriarchs” as a synonym for “Eastern Patriarchs”, meaning the incumbents of all four ancitent Eastern patriarchal sees. This was a sign of the times – within the Ottoman Empire the independence of the four Patriarchates vis-a-vis each other was limited and the four often acted as one, with Constantinople’s hierarch at the helm of the entire “Roman Orthodox people” in the Ottoman lands. That may be part of the reason why, when speaking of the Patriarch of Constantinople alone, Russian usage has tended to prefer “Constantinopolitan” to “Ecumenical” – simply to avoid confusion with the other “Ecumenical Patriarchs” (i.e. of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem).

Scott’s observation is well-founded – in my reading of official Russian church news “Constantinoplitan” seems much more common than “Ecumenical” when it comes to current events. But it’s not exclusive. Here is a Russian-language news report from the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate – http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/1168097.html. It is dated May 28, 2010, and entitled “Вселенский Патриарх молился за Божественной литургией в Валаамском Спасо-Преображенском монастыре” – literally: “The Ecumenical Patriarch prayed at the Divine liturgy at the Valaam Transfiguration-of-the-Savior monastery.” Although I think Scott’s analysis may be on the mark, Russian avoidance of the title “Ecumenical” doesn’t imply rejection.

I think there is some confusion here about titles versus status vis a vis the diptychs. Pat. Bartholomew would be first among equals regardless of whether he used the title “Ecumenical Patriarch”. We’re talking about two entirely different things. Rome had a primacy of honor during the period when the term “Ecumenical Patriarch” was coined. It has nothing to do with position on the diptychs at all.

Basically, I don’t have a problem with Constantinople using it because it is essentially meaningless. Yes, Constantinople is currently first among equals. No, it is not and has never been the “Universal Patriarchate” nor is it any longer the “Imperial Patriarchate”. But, since no one outside the Greek world is taking its broader claims seriously, it appears as a harmless anachronism. Nonetheless, it may be that the MP is purposely avoiding the term in order to correct what it perceives to be a somewhat inaccurate ecclesiology coming out of the Phanar.

My own feeling is that I am glad that the relationship betweeen Constantinople and Moscow has improved. Orthodoxy has only one weakness,
and that is the political infighting between different Churches that occasionally erupts into outright cessation of communion.

Having observed the visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch to Russia, it appears to me that he was received with great reverence and respect from
the hierarchy of the Russian Church, the Russian government, and the Russian faithful. As to the use of his title by the Moscow Patriarchate,
I do not know if this means anything, but Moscow has made no moves to my knowledge to displace Constantinople as first in rank among
the Churches.

I am one who definitely believes in Moscow as the Third Rome, considering that the Russian Church is the largest of all Orthodox Churches, and
the Russian government is the most powerful of Orthodox Countries. I am however most pleased that the fighting between these two great
historic Patriarchal sees has ceased.

Patriarch Kyrill, who is without question an individual of immense holiness and spirituality has long been a supporter of Christians facing
persecution. When he was in prior position as Secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate he was very vocal in expressing his support for the Ecumenical
Patriarchate in its difficulties with the Turkish authorities.

He has continued his vocal support throught his tenure so far as Patriarch of Moscow so I do not see how or why he would be inclined to insult the
Ecumenical Patriarch.

At the Council that took place in 2008 which was attended by the late Patriarch Alexy, Bartholomew I as Ecumenical Patriarch presided without
any challenge to his role. Patriarch Alexy had previously boycotted similar Pan-Orthodox gatherings owing to the Phanar’s intervention in Estonia
and Ukraine. Thus, it appears to me that Moscow is not challenging Constantinople with regard to primacy of honor, but of Constantinople’s
involvement in Ukraine and Estonia.

Once Constantinople backed off from Ukraine, Moscow adopted a far friendlier posture to Constantinople.

I am more inclined to judge the situation based on actions and gestures rather than by the formality of titles. If Moscow had claims against
the Ecumenical Patriarchate, would Bartholomew I have been invited to Moscow and given a prominent reception?

Would both the Russian Church and government now be so open in championing the cause of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey?

I am hopeful that the improvement of relations between Constantinople and Moscow will serve as the basis for a new era in promoting pan
Orthodox unity and reconciliation.

Theodoros

Hi Ted,

Good to hear from you…Happy New Year!

Scott puts a finger on something that I have noticed ever since the trip of the EP to Moscow in May 2010.

At that time, I noticed a very distinct change in the titles, which implied to me that someone had made a decision in Moscow..it was just too consistent.

This article continued the pattern of the Russian referring to the EP as simply the “Patriarch of Constantinople” – no “His All Holiness”, no “Ecumenical Patriarch”…simply “Patriarch of Constantinople”.

I’m not pretending to know what it means…i’m just observing a distinct change in the title, in Russian reports.

And, as we all know, things like this do not happen by accident.

Best Regards,
Dean

Theodoros,

It’s not quite as simple as you make it. Moscow categorically rejects Constantinople’s claims under canon 28 of the IVth Council as well as the definition of primacy they propounded at Ravenna. They are definitely not on the same page regarding Constantinople’s status. Nonetheless, you are correct that no one is currently challenging Constantinople’s status as “first among equals” (would that they could remember the “equals” part and quit condescending to all other churches as being the “Mother Church”, which is simply dishonest). “First among equals” is something entirely different than the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” which was introduced centuries after Constantinople was raised to second place on the diptychs and for which Constantinople received great criticism from the then Orthodox pope of Rome – – such that they dared not use the term in correspondence until many centuries later.

Happy New Year

Ilya, if I may spring to Dean’s defense (and meaning no offense to you at all): I believe Dean was engaging in a type of Swiftian satire here. Let me explain. The particulars as you describe them may be true, but what is the end result? Let us not forget, that the Orthodox immigrants who came to America were likewise under the authority of the Russian-American archdiocese but in time, they broke away for various and sundry reasons. Do we have any guarantees that the Russians in Turkey won’t do so? Especially now that they have a Greek rector for their parish. In what language does he serve the divine services? Is this merely an effort to “hellenize” these immigrants? Etc. If so, then these attempts are doomed to failure.

The Russians are just merely giving the PC a face-saving way out of a morass of his own making. The demographic reality proves that the MP holds all the cards. And in the end, the Chambesy protocols will go the way of all flesh. Otherwise, if they were truly workable, then an Episcopal Assembly would have been created for Turkey. The Russians chose not to press the issue (i.e. the creation of a Russian diocese) at present but I believe it’s an inevitability, just like it will be in Africa. Else, they will simply overwhelm the native patriarchates with Russian bishops. (Further irony alert: at that point the Greek patriarchates may created separate jurisdictions for the Russians just to keep them off the local Holy Synods.) Remember, the Russians consider chess a spectator sport –they’re long-term thinkers.

Happy new year to all,

The Moscow Patriarchate fully recognizes the Ecumenical Patriarch as “First Among Equals”, as do all the Autocephalous Churches. Patriarch Kyrill, like other Orthodox Primates recognizes the rank of Churches of which Constantinople holds the first place. The name of the Ecumenical Patriarch is read first in the dyptichs by all Primates and then the names of the others are commemorated according to rank (of which Moscow is fifth).

On his visit to Moscow last year, Patriarch Bartholomew was introduced by a Russian priest at a Seminary as the “First” among Orthodox leaders.

The Russian Church has no quarrel with Constantinople’s honorary position. The dispute at hand has to do with Constantinople’s meddling in the affairs of other Churches.

It is Constantinople’s intervention in Russian Church territory that Moscow does not recognize. Russia is not alone in this either. The Church of Greece has also refused to permit Constantinople to interfere on its territory.

As it is, Moscow and the other Churches accept the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s honorary position as can be seen by the place of honor given to the Ecumenical Patriarch when Orthodox primates are gathered together.

In any case, the reconciliation between Constantinople and Moscow is a welcome development. Patriarch Kyrill has taken a great interest in the plight of the Greek Orthodox Christians of Constantinople and has used his position to assist the Ecumenical Patriarch.

It was Patriarch Bartholomew who requested of Patriarch Kyrill that the Russian community in Turkey come under the Phanar, and Patriarch Kyrill agreed with the idea.

Metropolitan Hilarion has also been outspoken in his support for the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Russian Bishops were present in very important liturgies in Cappadocia and
at the ancient Monastery of Panagia Soumela in Pontos last year.

In Cappadocia, Metropolitan Hilarion encouraged Greeks to support the Ecumenical Patriarch and expressed the hope that the Orthodox Church in Constantinople will rise again as the Church in Russia did. ‘

At the present time, relations between the Churches of Constantinople and Moscow are quite good.

Happy New Year

Theodoros

In this and previous reports regarding Pat. Bartholomew’s visit to Russia, the consistent practice of the Russian press releases has been to refer to Constantinople and Moscow as “sister churches” and refer to their respective patriarchs with the same honorific, “Holiness” (rather than “All-Holiness” for Pat. Nartholomew). Furthermore, in the Google translation above, early in the story the Patriarchate of Constantinople is refered to as the “Ecumenical Patriarchate”. This does not appear in the Russian version which simply refers to the “Constantinopolitan Patriarchate”.

Now, I haven’t reviewed any sizeable number of Russian stories regarding Patriarch Bartholomew, but these descriptions I find interesting. I do not think that the MP is pressing the “Third Rome” idea explicitly, but I do think that the MP does not take Constantinople too seriously and sees them as a smaller, older sister see whose claims regarding its prerogatives they don’t feel continually compelled to dignify with refutation, acknowledgment or in any way. They use their language and thereby express their opinion and don’t really have to be concerned about what Constantinople may or may not do because of the relative weakness of Constaninople vis a vis Moscow. Or, more pointedly, why would they need to claim de jure leadership when they can behave as though they already have de facto leadership? To press an overt claim would make them look small.

Just my thoughts.

I guess overlapping jurisdictions are no longer an American-only pheomenon.

They haven’t been for centuries, with Austria-Hungary at the top of the offending list. But I fail to detect overlapping jurisdictions in this report. Turkey is divided jurisdictionally between the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Georgia. As the article makes clear

In 2006 have been collected and handed over to Patriarch Bartholomew over 300 signatures requesting to open in Antalya, a Russian Orthodox church.

If the Russian Church wished to open its parish in Turkey unilaterally, do you think the parishioners would be asking permission from the Patriarch of Constantinople? I imagine those 300 signatories would have been addressing Patriarch Alexy II instead. Yet, the parishioners petitioned the local canonical first hierarch – the one in Constantinople – and now have a Greek archimandrite for a parish priest. Who does he commemorate at liturgy? Who signed his antimension? I suspect not the Patriarch of Moscow. No parallel jurisdictions in Antalya, it seems.

Dean, you took the words right out of my mouth. An Episcopal Assembly for Turkey? One in line with the Chambesy accords? Brilliant! Who says the Lord doesn’t have a sense of humor?