Many of the problems addressed here can be overcome through the united action and witness of United European Christendom. Alternatively, our divisions can continue to paralyze us and weaken the resonance of the Gospel message. So you decide. How are we doing? David Owen
]]>Peter,
As I wrote above:
“If a local council does reflect the mind of the Church, then it is authoritative. Of course, we don’t really know until it is confirmed more widely.”
I don’t think I disagree with you. The list of authorities you quote from Bp. Kallistos’ book is certainly widely respected within the Church and, to varying extents in different quarters, is accorded the status of Tradition. But I think that is because these sources have been so widely recognized over time throughout the Church.
Take, for example, the council in the 14th century that approved hesychastic practices and formalized the distinction between God’s essence and energies. This is considered almost foundational in understanding Orthodox theology and so widely accepted as not to be seriously questioned. Some accord this council the status of an 8th ecumenical council.
The thing to keep in mind is that ecumenical councils are really called to address controversy. When a proposition is recognized by a local council or a particular hierarch as being a part of Holy Tradition, the test if this is a correct pronouncement is whether said proposition has been widely accepted without controversy. Not every proposition needs the authority of an ecumenical council to be validly said to be included in Holy Tradition.
The reason I myself would be reluctant to quote the council of 1872 in support of anti-tribalism and against overlapping jurisdictions is not that the resolutions of the council were necessarily incorrect, but that we already know that racism and overlapping jurisdictions are no-no’s and quoting a highly questionable local council to support this proposition may actually detract from persuasion. Moreover, the council condemned the Bulgarians as “real schismatics”. As has been observed above, much of the Church did not consider the Bulgarians as having broken communion with the rest of the Church and still maintained intercommunion with them. So that part of the decree, in my humble opinion, is highly questionable. Were those local churches who did not break communion with Bulgaria also schismatic? Are most of the local churches today schismatic because we have overlapping ethnic based jurisdictions here in the Western World. What does this say about our mysteries? Etc.
]]>Orthodox Conciliarity means synods/councils in the Holy Spirit. In extremis (not as a habit, as with Old Rome), a council of one, such as the High Priest (Patriarch?!) at the time of the Lord’s Crucifixion, could prophesy unwittingly in echoes down the ages, even saying the right words but for the wrong reasons!
I’ve always understood, from Metr. KALLISTOS in The Orthodox Church, and other things I’ve read, that there can be said to be a list of writings never formally vetted by an Ecumenical Synod (yet), but fairly commonly considered as representing Orthodoxy, such as an 867 encyclical of St. Photius the Great, a 1054 letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch, a 1440-41 letter of St. Mark of Ephesus, a 1455-56 confession of faith of Patriarch Gennadius of C’ople, a 1672 confession of faith of Dositheus, the 1848 Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX of Old Rome, etc. (see p. 203 of Kallistos’ 1993 Penguin edition). Some Canons of the Church were issued not even by synods but single Hierarchs, such as St. Basil the Great IIRC: I’m not sure what weight Orthodox canonists give such, but they’re discussed at least.
Could a gathering in C’ople in 1872 have said the right thing for the wrong reasons? They clearly expressed their opinion in neutral, universal terms, rather than just blasting the Bulgarians by name (at least in the quoted portion??). One doesn’t have to cite it, just go back to One-Bishop-One-City at Nicea. But it’s useful to see the matter more recently than AD 325, addressing more or less the exact situation we have here, explicitly, and calling it a non-starter in the strongest possible way.
It’s not my impression that accepting any of these “commonly accepted” sources is considered to ipso facto elevate that particular source for all times, in all circumstances, to absolute rule. IIUC the approach by persons far wiser and holier than I, would be, Is it correct, Is it applicable, Is it a good idea, Does it fit perfectly the current circumstance, and If not, can it be tweaked to fit in a helpful manner? It’s said that these are canonoi, not nomoi — guidelines, not laws per se. Helps for Hierarchs and Synods — who have ultimate responsibility to interpret them — to stay with the Holy Spirit or the Patristic mind. Not exactly stare decisis! 😉
]]>Thank you, Father. I was being a little “forward-looking,” what with the serious talk of forming a semi-autocephalous “Metropolitanate” uniting ROEA and the Patriarchal Archdiocese, within the Patriarchate, ie, ROEA leaving the OCA.
]]>” . . . I consistently use this quote, and the authority of that council, because (like it or not) these types of local councils are the highest source of authority in the church, absent an ecumenical council (which we have obviously not had in a very long time).”
Dean,
I agree with the council insofar as it condemned overlapping jurisdictions and, in its own peculiar way, jurisdiction by race. Whether that automatically makes those who violate these rules “schismatics” is a different matter. As I stated above, most of the Church would be schismatic if we took this literally.
However, when you suggest, as you did above, that “the Church has spoken on the subject”, I have to disagree. I suppose the phrase is ambiguous to some extent. To the extent overlapping jurisdictions are uncanonical, we already knew this. As far as dividing up the Church by race, I think that also is clearly out of bounds. I just don’t want to rely on the council of 1872 as the authority for those propositions since local councils can and do err and their authority over the universal Church is very limited, if at all. Also, when you look at the facts of what and why surrounding the council, it is difficult to say that the decision itself was motivated by anything other than phyletism.
Actually, given the representatives at the council, it may be that the only place that the decision “has teeth” is under Constantinople. It was only their synod which participated. Unless the Patriarch of Alexandria has the authority from his synod to decree such things for his Church (which he may have, from what little I know, it has been run top down for a long time), then it would not apply to them. The question is, “Who was bound to declare the Bulgarians schismatics?” I know the decision of the council now is only being used for rhetorical purposes. No one’s canonicity is on the line. But these things do matter.
Conciliarity means representative councils. If a local council does reflect the mind of the Church, then it is authoritative. Of course, we don’t really know until it is confirmed more widely. So really, unless I’m missing something, a local council is not really the highest authority in the Church absent an ecumenical council. They are apples and oranges.
I know that the decision supports the position of the OCA and, in general, of those who want to see a united autocephalous church in North America. Perhaps it is my lawyerly cautious side, but I see the weakness of using this as authority as the danger that you’re actually raising all local councils as authority and thus saying the Church is accountable for all the errors of local councils. Now, against the Phanar, I don’t see a weakness. Whatever else may be true, Constantinople clearly endorsed the views of the council and can be held responsible. Perhaps that is all that is necessary since they are the largest single obstacle to North American Church unity.
Of course, I could be totally mistaken about it all and so I’ll leave others to decide that.
]]>LOL. Fortescue was bitterly opposed to the Orthodox. In the “Catholic Encyclopedia” he chorttles on how the Orthodox have “forgotten” the institution of the Patriarch, and all of the Churches will be run by “Holy Governing Synods.” Less than a decade after he wrote that, all HGS except for Greece’s (for obvious reasons) was replaced by a Patriarch.
But on Jerusalem, his facts are accurate, despite the haughty icing he puts on them. I’ve seen the decrees in Greek (and French: the EP published in both).
]]>Hi Scott,
While I agree with you that this was not an ecumenical council, I consistently use this quote, and the authority of that council, because (like it or not) these types of local councils are the highest source of authority in the church, absent an ecumenical council (which we have obviously not had in a very long time). And the mere fact that 3 of the four Eastern patriarchates were represented at this council, gives it’s proclamation greater authority than a simple local council (which I agree, we could get carried away with).
Further, I have no issue with your “two sides of the story” and have told that part of the story many many times. Personally, I believe the rise of national churches, first during the middle ages (in both Serbia and Bulgaria), and then the subsequent subsuming of those churches (both forcibly re-integrated back into the Ecumenical Patriarchate during the Ottoman years) is an excellent example showing us that the church was ALWAYS meant to be dynamic…and that the ecclesial borders have ALWAYS followed the secular ones. Think about it, when Byzantium was shrinking, leaving Orthodox outside the empire’s borders (in the Balkans) new independent churches were formed. Then, as the Ottomans reconquered all of those areas, those churches were re-integrated back into the EP. And the attempt to Hellenize those areas is a fact. Then, as those (Balkan) countries threw off the Turkish rule, one by one, the churches reformed and did likewise (Greece included).
And is this really so different than what we are witnessing in the Soviet Union (Estonian Church, Georgian Church, soon the Ukrainian Church).
I think an understanding of this whole issue surrounding the 1872 synod is instructive to us on many fronts.
First, it proves that ours is a dynamic system, and it was ALWAYS meant to be that way. Which, by the way, makes the situation in the US even more laughable – particularly when we hear about things like the proteia and presvia of the ancient patriarchates….(give me a break!).
Second, I think it is particularly instructive to us because it was held in response to one of the few times (that I know of anyway) where a situation of overlapping jurisdictions occurred within the realm of the ancient patriarchates. So we see that the temptation to do this (create overlapping jurisdictions) has ALWAYS been present. And we see, of course, how the ancient patriarchates viewed and dealt with the situation. To be honest, I think this is why Archbishop Peter brought this to my attention. He wanted me to know…this has happened before…and the same church which stands in the way of resolving the situation in North America called overlapping jurisdictions preposterous! I think there is particular irony in that…and so did His Eminence.
So, would they have condemned a Greek exarchate in Russia? Probably not. Nevertheless, they did give us a response to the situation…one which is every bit as correct in the USA in 2010 as it was in Constantinople in 1872.
Just my humble opinion.
Best Regards,
Dean
Michael wrote:
“How do we know any statement by any council is true? In fact, we don’t. We accept such statements because they accord with the rule of faith, the historical understanding of the Church as traditioned to us and the our own commitment to truth.”
Actually, you could ask, “How do we know that such statements accord with the rule of faith?” and “How do we know such statements are in accord with the historical understanding of the Church?” I suppose the answer to that is that if we are to embrace the Orthodox faith, part of that faith is that a great and holy synod, if received by the faithful over time, is the highest earthly authority on disputed questions. The rest of it is uncertain until the Church adopts a relatively undisputed opinion. Otherwise we’re left with a [not so] Orthodox version of “soul competency”. I do not dispute that the council of 1872 was more or less correct in what it said since there is, “. . . neither Jew nor Greek . . .” and since dueling overlapping jurisdictions are uncanonical.
By the way, you can find an online copy of the Rudder here:
http://www.allmercifulsavior.com/Liturgics/The_Rudder_or_Pedalion.pdf
And the decrees of Councils, although I don’t know if it’s complete, here:
]]>How do we know any statement by any council is true? In fact, we don’t. We accept such statements because they accord with the rule of faith, the historical understanding of the Church as traditioned to us and the our own commitment to truth.
The traditional prohibition against more than three marriages was made a cannon by a local council of Constantinople (in actuality many early fathers thought more than one was sacriledge). I don’t know the composition of the council, but it supported the Patriarch of Constantiople against the bishop of Rome. It followed long statnding Roman legal precedent, but was still part of the battle between east and west for supremacy within the Church. Is it true? Does it have anything to say about the modern condition and our pastoral response to same to those outside the Church?
I can’t find a full statement of the conciliar decrees anywhere in English. How do we know?
How do we know that any bishop interprets any cannon righteously since the Rudder is out of print in English?
It just points up to me that we have little real understanding of what Holy Tradition is here in the new world. Little has actually been handed down to us in a living, breathing form–just rules and those subject to wide-ranging intrepretations depending which bishop you get on what day.
What we have is the sacramental reality,i.e., the real and living presence of Jesus Christ, the Creed, the Holy Scriptures and writings of the Holy Fathers on same. The rest, it seems to me we tend to make up as we go along to be in harmony with our own bias.
We have yet to respond to the challenge to be the Church. When and if we do, great things could happen.
]]>Isa,
The work you reference was published by the Catholic Truth Society. Take a look at later pages. It is relentlessly anti-Orthodox. My impression is that nothing good or true could come out of it. Nonetheless, the history regarding the Patriarch of Jerusalem’s refusal to go along may be true. I haven’t looked into it that far.
]]>Truly, you can’t make this stuff up. What a disgrace. “Brotherhood of the Tomb-worshippers”! I love it!
]]>Jerusalem’s Patiarch Cyril II refused to go along with the pot and kettle synod, and so the Brotherhood of the Tomb worshippers conspired with the Phanar to depose him. The non-Greek (i.e. majority) Faithful in Jerusalem and Syria refused to recognize his deposition and his successor, the latter the Russians took care of while the Faithful continued to commemorate Cyril II. Once +Cyril fell asleep his successor tried to restore omogeneia. Russia responded by taking control of Jerusalem’s source of income in Moldavia (the Phanariots had seized about a third of the land in Romania to fund themselves).
]]>Two more things though:
1) I believe Dean, you and I are in agreement regarding the substance of this stuff and I didn’t mean to needlessly poo-poo a council whose conclusions support American Orthodox autocephaly (which would be a good thing).
2) When I try to edit comments these days, the edit box constantly moves the text so I can’t do so. I wonder if anyone else is having this problem?
]]>George,
Your states rights analogy is not a bad reflection of the situation.
It just seems comical to me in a way. I didn’t put too fine a point on it in my post above but to demonstrate how much it looks like a Cohen brothers film, allow me to hyperbolize a tad:
Bulgarians, fellow Orthodox, were being frozen out of any positions of authority in the Roman millet (aka the “Ecumenical” Patriarchate) due to race. They were being prevented from worshiping in a language that is a direct ancestor of their own (much like church Greek is a predecessor of modern Greek). So in the name of condemning racism (they actually didn’t use the term racism, they used a term coined from the Greek work for tribe – phyletism), a council of three Greek Patriarchs (two of whom were Patriarchs over Churches which were perdominantly non-Greek, by the way) condemns the actions of the Bulgarians not only as uncanonical but as schismatic.
Or, to be even more blunt, a phyletist council condemns phyletism.
You can’t make stuff like this up, it’s just too precious.
]]>Scott, of course, you are right. There are always hidden agendas and imputations of bad faith almost behind every action, even within the Church. I for one agree with you, had there been an extracanonical Greek jurisdiction in Bulgaria, then Anthimos would probably have done backflips to justify it. Having said that, we can’t assume that the Holy Spirit was not acting through the findings of this (admittedly) local council.
One analogy might be the Southern insistence on “states rights” during the civil rights struggle. The plain words are of course true, states do have rights as recognized by the ninth and tenth amendments. Having said that, many (not all) who used this argument did so because they wanted to restrict black people’s access to unfettered voting. (Many blacks actually voted but it was heavily restricted via grandfather clauses or literacy tests, etc.)
]]>