Just read the excerpt from Runciman cited above.

Someone did a VERY nice job with that..bravo.

It’s always been one of my favorite books.

You’ll laugh – a few years ago, some OCL officers and I met with Fr. Alex Karloutsos at GOARCH in NYC.

Toward the end of the meeting, he pulled a copy of this book from his shelf, slid it across the table to me and told me that I should read about the ecumenical patriarchate.

My eyes lit up, having read that book about four times (I really think it’s Runciman’s best, if most overlooked, work).

“Yes Father, and what was the conclusion that Sir Steven came to in that book?” I asked.

Silence..followed by stuttering.

“That perhaps now that there are no more Greeks in Constantinople…maybe the patriarchate can revert to being an ECUMENICAL patriarchate, rather than a patriarch of the Greeks,” I continued.

Runciman had it EXACTLY right…

Too bad no one is listening.

Best Regards,
Dean

Untrue.

“Canon 28 of Chalcedon appears to clarify the reference in canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople which says that churches in the “barbarian nations” should be governed ‘according to the tradition established by the fathers.'”

True, but does not prove the point. The argument is about what the Fathers established, if anything.

“This interpretation of canon 28 is supported by the fact that the geographical boundaries of the Local Churches are set. Their bishops are not permitted to minister beyond these limits. The Council of Constantinople in canon 2 clearly states: ‘Bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries for the purpose of governing them…'”

This is a non-sequitur as well as being absurd. Yes, it is true that bishops should not invade churches beyond their boundaries. This presumes that there is a church established. The first two sentences are irrational. Why would the Fathers prevent any church from establishing missions in territory not granted to another bishop or church? Does this not contradict the Great Commission. It would be nice, however, if the EP would honor the canons and get out of the Ukraine.

“One must also take note of the missionary activity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Central and Eastern Europe from the ninth under Patriarch Photios and later on through the sixteenth centuries. In these cases, the Ecumenical Patriarchate acted to spread the Gospel in territories beyond the boundaries of other Local Churches. [1] ”

Good, he did his duty. That does not prove, however, that other Churches are prevented from doing likewise.

“The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephalous status to the Church of Russia in 1589, confirmed in the Golden Seal Certificate in 1591, which was reaffirmed by a synod in Constantinople in 1593 when patriarchal status was granted. In these Tomes, the territorial jurisdiction of the Church of Russia was clearly defined.”

Funny, I thought they attained it de facto when, because it had become Uniate, Constantinople couldn’t appoint a replacement to lead the Church of Russia.

“Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has recently said:”

And this proves what? He’s not a Pope.

“It is attested to by innumerable examples of initiative undertaken by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to exercise leadership for those Local Churches prevented by unusual circumstances from doing so.”

Just because the EP says something or undertakes to do A, B or C, does not mean that he has the exclusive right to do so or the perogative to do so. Doesn’t the word “logic” come from the Greek?

“Yet, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction.”

How generous!

I notice that there was no mention of any canonical basis whatsoever for the EP’s assumed perogative to be the sole bestower of autocephaly.

I am surprised by this. I thought the faculty of Holy Cross were more thoughtful and reasonable than this seems to indicate.

There was once a bishop, first among equals, who began arrogating power to himself not granted by the canons or the consensus of the Church. In the end, his church lapsed into heresy. It appears that the Church of Constantinople has an attitude similar to that of Rome in the 9th and 10th centuries.

Oh well. What can you do?

This attempt to turn the Orthodox Church into an excursively Greek Church was one of the outcomes of Phanariot policy. It lead also to a decline in spiritual values, by stressing Greek culture as against Orthodox traditions and seeking to turn the Church into a vehicle of nationalist feeling, genuine and democratic up to a point, but little concerned with the spiritual life. At the same time it place the Patriarchate on the horns of a moral dilemma. It involved the Church in politics… From: Nationalism in Greek Orthodoxy.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the missteps at the White House several months ago, or the misreading of protocol (and subsequent diminishing of Patriarchal honor) displayed at the hotel visit between His All Holiness and Pres. Obama in Istanbul last month, were caused by the imbalance in perception that results from the elevation of ethnic identity as a universal value.

Take the White House visit for example. In the ethnic narrative, Alexander the Great functions as a kind of superhero — a figure of myth and mystery — rather than historical personage. Comparing Pres. Obama to Alexander is meant as a compliment. In the wider world of course the comparison is at best incomprehensible, and at worst comes across as servile flattery. Yet the entire entourage failed to grasp this, hence the embarrassment.

It also explains why the feting of Greek politicos like Sens. Sarbannes and Snowe continue despite their aggressive stand against the Orthodox moral tradition in their public lives.

I’ve just gone through the Patriarch’s 2008 book “Encountering the Mystery” again to see what he has to say about Orthodox unity in America. He has much to say about interfaith dialogue, the environment, social justice, theology, monasticism and a host of other topics. Nothing, as far as I can tell, about American unity. Not one word (please if I am wrong about this provide a citation). His All Holiness does say that that the Patriarchate “constitutes the par excellence center of all the local Orthodox churches. It heads these not by administering them, but by virtue of the primacy of its ministry of Pan-Orthodox unity and the coordination of the activity of all of Orthodoxy.” Elsewhere in the book, he provides a detailed list — covering two full pages — of the churches, institutions and organizations over which he exercises jurisdiction.

In his chapter on interfaith relations, the Patriarch reminds us that “dialogue enriches; whoever refuses dialogue remains impoverished. Finally, dialogue seeks persuasion, not coercion. It does not eliminate responsibility as a critical part of response.”

Here we see the great error of the V. Rev. Archimandrite Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis’ speech at Holy Cross in March. This was not a dialogue. This was a monologue delivered on behalf of the Phanar and the GOA. A monologue that will forever be remembered for its smug arrogance, condescension to sister Orthodox churches, and total obtuseness regarding the experience and reality of American Orthodoxy.

The faculty letter also conveniently omits any reference to the all-consuming “Hellenism and Orthodoxy” project that has defined the governmental lobbying and fundraising activities of the Archdiocese for many years now. Imagine where we’d all be today if that energy, and all of those millions of dollars, had been applied to an “American Unity” project.

Again, I don’t recall one word of encouragement at the last Clergy-Laity congress on the subject of American Orthodox unity. If I have missed something, please bring this to my attention. I do remember a lot of speech making from various ambassadors of foreign governments regarding Hellenism and our legendary Greek cultural superiority which has been forever imprinted on the DNA of the Omogeneia. Then there was the bouzouki party, which was fun, but didn’t seem to speak to the future of Orthodoxy in America.

“The nationalization of Orthodoxy,” writes Vasilios N. Makrides, “is a relatively recent phenomenon, accentuated especially from the nineteenth century until today with the advent of the nation-state, which has had many repercussions for maintaining pan-Orthodox unity. Yet this novel phenomenon is hardly congruent with the Orthodox universalistic tradition of the Byzantine past, when Orthodox Christianity tried to preserve a supra-national character. The changes that have occurred in this domain have, however, altered so deeply Orthodox consciousness that the various national Orthodox Churches worldwide are hailed today as protectors of the respective national identities and collaborate closely with the respective nation-states! Here we can clearly observe how Orthodox Christianity has acquired a characteristic that is certainly at odds with its own historical heritage.” [in the essay “Orthodox Christianity, Rationalization, Modernization: A Reassessment”; published in “Eastern Orthodoxy in a Global Age,” Rowman & Littlefield, 2005]

Further, the fact that the statement was left unsigned is peculiar. Are we to believe that the faculty is unanimous in its opinion on thorny issues like Canon 28 or the shape of Orthodoxy in America, as the unsigned statement implies? I doubt it. I’d rather see healthy debate over these issues — real engagement with the dissenting views that will clarify the historical record (and I would expect as much from an academic faculty) — instead of another declaration that the debate is closed.

Moreover, the following assertion (already mentioned in Fr. Gregory’s excellent response above — Note #5):  “…the Ecumenical Patriarchate has exercised restraint and has not broken communion with this jurisdiction” (regarding the OCA) is unduly provocative. First of all, why even say it? Second, say Constantinople does indeed break communion with the OCA but Moscow does not. Why cause a division that will only make Constantinople look bad in the end? At best it is sloppy thinking, at worst bullying.

Either way, assertions like this won’t play well with Americans. We aren’t that impressed with appeals to authority. We respect authority, but we are very uncomfortable with following authority unless we have some sense of where they are going first. Call this a characteristic of American culture, and it is increasingly clear that Constantinople does not understand it. Fr. Elpidophoros certainly didn’t. I have to think though that some faculty at Holy Cross do.

1.) Lay and Clergy faculty who are members of or who chair peer-reviewed journal editorial boards
2.) Have published critically-reviewed books and papers about our Church and our Faith
3.) Are internationally recognized and respected by their peers.

Citations of primary sources and the reasoning presented in this paper make for convincing arguments for this simple lay person (well, minor clergy if you count the fact that I am a tonsured Reader). And what is well implied here is that despite the canonical (dis)order and issues, our Church’s principle of “Ekonomia” helps to bind our Eucharistic unity. Hopefully we all understand this before a faction decides that they do not like the results of the Cyprus Council meetings this fall and further drift away into an Orthodox version of a protestant church.

They forgot to mention that Abp Iakovos of blessed memory, was fired for having participated in the Ligonier Conference, or that the EP has been the principal obstacle to Orthodox Unity on this continent ever since that time…fearing the loss of it’s parochial prerequisites.

As far as the claims of canon 28, I tend to agree with the words of the Moscow patriarchate which called the claims “quite far-fetched and devoid of any canonical substantiation.” (see Sept 18, 2002 letter from Moscow to Constantinople).

Nevertheless, when the ecumenical patriarchate begins to act in accordance with those fine words, it will find a willing audience and support on this continent.

Until that time, they will continue to be recognized for what they are…a moribund bishopric dying to be heard from.

Shame on the authors of that article…the depth of the intellectual dishonesty verges on bankrupcty.

Shaking my head in disbelief.

Dean Calvert

This is not offered as an argument for or against that agenda; it is just a look at the mechanics of it. (Please forgive this somewhat crass departure from the far more important theological issues at hand. As I noted before, I am not qualified to address them in any meaningful way.)
Thus, even on a purely functional level, Fr. Gregory and George are quite correct in noting the importance of evangelization and mission. To use an old political saw: the folks will follow the ones that brought them to the dance. In purely pragmatic terms, if mission, evangelism and spiritual formation are not primary, then there will not be a sufficient “base” (that is to say, there will not be enough of the moral authority needed) to make anything meaningful or lasting happen. This may account for what increasingly appears to be an urgent effort to leverage canon 28 for all it’s worth.

For the same reasons, as Michael and George have pointed out repeatedly elsewhere, focusing primarily on serving an ethnically-defined social group ultimately becomes self-extinquishing. However valid it may be, it can not alter the course of demographics: the older generation that cared about maintaining the distinguishing identity will gradually die out. Because we do not fight the last generation’s war, the younger generation may find that it needs something else, something more. Thus, IF the focus really is on serving the needs of a particular social group, it will eventually collapse from failing to focus on the deeper yearnings of the heart. If, however, one DOES focus on those concerns, it will bring in a lot of people who fall outside of – and begin to displace – the initial demographic. From the perspective of the initial demographic, the result is the same either way.
In the end, even on a purely practical level, the wisdom of God is evident: you can not serve two masters – and the one, like all things of the flesh, is destined to pass away. In the end, only the kingdom of God remains and only the kingdom of God matters.

The Kemalists are fiends. The sad situation may get worse before it gets better.

Thanks for your response,
Joseph

I too would like to see the Monks of Mount Athos influence the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Mount Athos has been able to unite Orthodoxy in a very unique way. The Holy Mountain has been able to maintain its moral and theological authority from all parts of the Orthodox world, including those Churches which have severed communion from the rest such as the Old Calendarists.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely the Monks of Athos will be able to exert any influence on the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Turkish government is beyond embaressmant or shame. They are fully aware that violent incidents directed against the Patriarchate hurt their image, but they simply do not care. They want the Patriarchate out of Turkey.

To be sure, most Turks are very nice and friendly people. Their leaders on the other hand are racists to the core. They are waiting for the Patriarch and his Bishops to eventually pass on from old age and natural causes.

Two years ago, a group of Turkish Kemalist military officers were arrested for plotting the assasinations of the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Armenian Patriarch. Turkish nationalists believe the Phanar is plotting to revive the Byzantine Empire. These are not rational people, and Turkey’s military leaders, along with the Islamists have shown no inclination they understand or care about the history of position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate among Orthodox Churches.

They believe the Patriach is the local Bishop of Istanbul. In this, they recently gained the support of President Barack Obama who gave the Patriarch a diplomatic slap in the face. The Obama administration has now linked the Phanar with the Greek Muslim community in Western Thrace. This badly diminishes the “Ecumenical” status of the Phanar.

I have always believed the Ecumenical Patriarchate should stay in the holy ground of Constantinople, but now I am inclined to entertain the opposing view. Considering the extent to which this Church is horribly mistreated, the Turks in my view are unworthy of having the Patriarchate on their soil.

When all is said and done, the Patriarchate’s fate was sealed following the Turkish victories of 1922. The Patriarchate has been mistreated not only by the Turks, but by the Great Powers who continue to use it for their own political purposes such as dividing the Orthodox world by playing off Greeks against the Russians etc.

The Turks would not have been able to succeed in their war against the Orthodox Christians in Turkey were it not for the active tolerance of the western governments. The will never existed to protect the Patriarchate’s flock, and the will does not exist now to protect the Patriarchate itself.

It is ironic also that the same voices that criticzed Metropolitan Jonah for his valid views regarding Orthodox unity in America have been silent regarding President Obama’s slap at the Patriarchate.

Back in 1204 when Constantinople was conquered by the Latin Crusaders, the Patriach followed the Emperor into exile in the free territory of Nicea. The Ecumenical Patriarchate should consider following the example of his predecessor and moving at least on a temporary basis to the free territory in Greece.

At a very minimum, there should be a discusion among Orthodox theologians, Canonists, Byzantine historians, and international lawyers about what to do with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Following the present course will inevitably lead to the Patriarchate’s extinction.

Last year, the Patriarch reportedly asked the Greek government for permission to open a theological seminary in Greece on the site of one that the Church of Greece no longer uses. Some have interpreted this to mean that the Patriarch himself recognizes the reality that Halki may never reopen.

Theodoros

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ligonier_Meeting

Frankly, until that is publically and specifically addressed, the rest of the EP’s words are not really worth much consideration.

This is incorrect. As I’ve dealt with this in my own essay, only those “barbarians” living within Pontus, Asia, and Thrace were subject to Constantinople. Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that this canon abrogates canons 2, 8, Apostolic canon 34, etc. Canon 28 in its own context carefully delineates C’pole’s borders.

As for the missions to the Goths and Scythians in the fifth century, that is neither here nor there as there were no other churches north of Constantinople who could carry this mission. What about in the eighth century, when both Rome and C’pole were evangelizing Bulgaria? Why didn’t C’pole pull rank on Rome? Wbat about the German priests who were missionizing Bulgaria and Moravia? Why didn’t C’pole evangelize Nubia which was south of Alexandria and outside it’s patriarchate? Or Mesopotamia which was outside of the see of Antioch?

This saddens me because the theologians at HC should know better. They are playing the same bait and switch tactics regarding canon 28 (its validity as well as its context) and assuming that which is not in evidence, that is that “only the bishop of Constantinople has the responsibility to organize ecclesial life [outside] of established churches.”

Let it be said at this point that I would have no problem with such a scenario if it were canonically valid. It is not for two reasons: 1) no church is granted this right in the actual canons (even canon 28 doesn’t) and 2) it is theological problematical. Churches are encouraged to missionize new territory. It happened all the time. If there was a modus operandi in Orthodoxy, it was this: that the local church which evangelized had the prerogatives.

It appears that having failed to dismiss the claims of the Russian Mission, an invalid trump card is now being played. I imagine that unless there is some collusion with other old world churches, this too shall fail.