What's going on with the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Russian Patriarch Kirill?

[rakovsky]

One thing I haven’t seen addressed, at least not often, in regards to the current EP-MP schism are the actual clerics of the OCU themselves.

Most people seem to focus on the EP invading the canonical territory of the MP

What I’m more curious about is the actual validity of the clerics of the OCU and whether or not they are actually legitimately ordained. Also, whether or not the EP has the authority to…with the swipe of a pen…able to regularize clergy who had been formally anathematized by another autocephalous Church.

If the OCU clerics are indeed schismatic, the concelebration of the Alexandrian/Greek/Cypriot/Constantinople hierarchs with them makes them schismatic as well. If the OCU is not currently schismatic and the EP did have the right to do what he did, then that changes thing.

Can someone explain this to me in layman’s

In layman's terms, one can not make the OCU's clerics to be "canonical" using common sense like you are trying to do in your question. To put it dryly, it seems that you would have to go on CP Bartholomew's decisions as your basis for thinking that the OCU's clergy carried canonical ordination.

To be more specific and technical, consider the following events:
1. The MP defrocked KP Filaret in 1992 and the CP wrote that they accepted the MP's decision.
2. KP Filaret ordained/consecrated clergy of the UOC-KP.
3. CP Bartholomew reinstated Filaret in October 2018. AFAIK, CP Bartholomew did NOT specifically reinstate the other UOC-KP clergy at that point. CP Bartholomew ALSO announced at about this time that he was retaking jurisdiction over Ukraine for the CP from the MP.
4. KP FIlaret and others in the UOC-KP formed the OCU.
5. CP Bartholomew recognized the OCU as the only legitimate "Church" in Ukraine in Jan. 2019.
6. KP Filaret and some other clergy left the OCU to start a small break away church.
7. The OCU declared that KP Filaret was no longer part of the OCU and that all consecrations performed by KP Filaret were invalid (and I take it that they meant this retroactively). KP's Filaret's UOC-KP breakaway church, in commenting on this decision, gave a press release noting that the OCU "primate" himself was consecrated by KP Filaret.

So in conclusion, it's hard to try to get the OCU's ordinations to make sense in the way that you are asking about. KP Filaret imposed the consecrations at a time when both the MP and CP agreed that KP Filaret was defrocked. Then the KP decided that the OCU was canonical, so it implies that the CP was indirectly validating the OCU hierarch's own consecrations. But then the OCU announced that all consecrations by KP Filaret were invalid, and they didn't draw an exception for consecrations made by KP Filaret on OCU clergy.

I guess if you want to consider the OCU clergy to be canonical, then you could say that their canonicity started in January 2019 on the theory that the CP somehow had jurisdiction in Ukraine, and then you could interpret their decision invalidating KP Filaret's consecrations to not apply to them somehow.

In conclusion, you need to decide whether CP Bartholomew had jurisdiction in Ukraine sufficient for him to declare the OCU canonical along with its clergy, and you need to decide if the OCU in effect revoked their own consecrations when they said that they revoked the consecrations performed by KP Filaret.

 

[Menas17]

In layman's terms, one can not make the OCU's clerics to be "canonical" using common sense like you are trying to do in your question. To put it dryly, it seems that you would have to go on CP Bartholomew's decisions as your basis for thinking that the OCU's clergy carried canonical ordination.

To be more specific and technical, consider the following events:
1. The MP defrocked KP Filaret in 1992 and the CP wrote that they accepted the MP's decision.
2. KP Filaret ordained/consecrated clergy of the UOC-KP.
3. CP Bartholomew reinstated Filaret in October 2018. AFAIK, CP Bartholomew did NOT specifically reinstate the other UOC-KP clergy at that point. CP Bartholomew ALSO announced at about this time that he was retaking jurisdiction over Ukraine for the CP from the MP.
4. KP FIlaret and others in the UOC-KP formed the OCU.
5. CP Bartholomew recognized the OCU as the only legitimate "Church" in Ukraine in Jan. 2019.
6. KP Filaret and some other clergy left the OCU to start a small break away church.
7. The OCU declared that KP Filaret was no longer part of the OCU and that all consecrations performed by KP Filaret were invalid (and I take it that they meant this retroactively). KP's Filaret's UOC-KP breakaway church, in commenting on this decision, gave a press release noting that the OCU "primate" himself was consecrated by KP Filaret.

So in conclusion, it's hard to try to get the OCU's ordinations to make sense in the way that you are asking about. KP Filaret imposed the consecrations at a time when both the MP and CP agreed that KP Filaret was defrocked. Then the KP decided that the OCU was canonical, so it implies that the CP was indirectly validating the OCU hierarch's own consecrations. But then the OCU announced that all consecrations by KP Filaret were invalid, and they didn't draw an exception for consecrations made by KP Filaret on OCU clergy.

I guess if you want to consider the OCU clergy to be canonical, then you could say that their canonicity started in January 2019 on the theory that the CP somehow had jurisdiction in Ukraine, and then you could interpret their decision invalidating KP Filaret's consecrations to not apply to them somehow.

In conclusion, you need to decide whether CP Bartholomew had jurisdiction in Ukraine sufficient for him to declare the OCU canonical along with its clergy, and you need to decide if the OCU in effect revoked their own consecrations when they said that they revoked the consecrations performed by KP Filaret.

That’s…confusing.

So if the Church of Russia does formally anathematize Patriarch Bartholomew at their synod next month, is the OCA bound by that? I believe they are in attendance as well. But, since the OCA is autocephalous, I don’t know if the decision is binding on them. I imagine they will ride the fence here in America

 

[Tzimis]

In layman's terms, one can not make the OCU's clerics to be "canonical" using common sense like you are trying to do in your question. To put it dryly, it seems that you would have to go on CP Bartholomew's decisions as your basis for thinking that the OCU's clergy carried canonical ordination.

To be more specific and technical, consider the following events:
1. The MP defrocked KP Filaret in 1992 and the CP wrote that they accepted the MP's decision.
2. KP Filaret ordained/consecrated clergy of the UOC-KP.
3. CP Bartholomew reinstated Filaret in October 2018. AFAIK, CP Bartholomew did NOT specifically reinstate the other UOC-KP clergy at that point. CP Bartholomew ALSO announced at about this time that he was retaking jurisdiction over Ukraine for the CP from the MP.
4. KP FIlaret and others in the UOC-KP formed the OCU.
5. CP Bartholomew recognized the OCU as the only legitimate "Church" in Ukraine in Jan. 2019.
6. KP Filaret and some other clergy left the OCU to start a small break away church.
7. The OCU declared that KP Filaret was no longer part of the OCU and that all consecrations performed by KP Filaret were invalid (and I take it that they meant this retroactively). KP's Filaret's UOC-KP breakaway church, in commenting on this decision, gave a press release noting that the OCU "primate" himself was consecrated by KP Filaret.

So in conclusion, it's hard to try to get the OCU's ordinations to make sense in the way that you are asking about. KP Filaret imposed the consecrations at a time when both the MP and CP agreed that KP Filaret was defrocked. Then the KP decided that the OCU was canonical, so it implies that the CP was indirectly validating the OCU hierarch's own consecrations. But then the OCU announced that all consecrations by KP Filaret were invalid, and they didn't draw an exception for consecrations made by KP Filaret on OCU clergy.

I guess if you want to consider the OCU clergy to be canonical, then you could say that their canonicity started in January 2019 on the theory that the CP somehow had jurisdiction in Ukraine, and then you could interpret their decision invalidating KP Filaret's consecrations to not apply to them somehow.

In conclusion, you need to decide whether CP Bartholomew had jurisdiction in Ukraine sufficient for him to declare the OCU canonical along with its clergy, and you need to decide if the OCU in effect revoked their own consecrations when they said that they revoked the consecrations performed by KP Filaret.

This sounds very unchristian and legalistic. Throughout history many saints have come in and out of communion with various churches only to be reinstated.
Ukrainian clerics that weren't in communion with the MP never really lost there orthodoxy over it because it wasn't theology based. It was a territorial dispute.

 

[srba]

...

What I’m more curious about is the actual validity of the clerics of the OCU and whether or not they are actually legitimately ordained. Also, whether or not the EP has the authority to…with the swipe of a pen…able to regularize clergy who had been formally anathematized by another autocephalous Church.
...

Can someone explain this to me in layman’s

Some of those "clergy" do not have apostolic succession. It isn't possible to "regularize" such "clergy".

 

[melkite]

Whoa there. Just because the EOs do not want to appoint an EO bishop in Rome because they honor Rome as a Patriarchy does not entail that the EOs consider Rome to be the Primus Sine Pares Uber Alles like the Roman Popes and now P. Bartholomew hold themselves out to be.

For example, Pope Francis recently gave Lutherans communion in the Vatican. It doesn't prove that he believes that Luther was right about the Catholic Church all along.

You didn't bold the full sentence. The part you left unbolded is important for the context. He didn't need to recognize papal supremacy to the extent that Rome has dogmatized it. But it makes no sense to replace the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria but not replace the bishop of Rome for the same reasons under the same circumstances.

 

[FULK NERA]

That’s…confusing.

So if the Church of Russia does formally anathematize Patriarch Bartholomew at their synod next month, is the OCA bound by that? I believe they are in attendance as well. But, since the OCA is autocephalous, I don’t know if the decision is binding on them. I imagine they will ride the fence here in America

By what notion do you think the OCA Synod is bound by anything the Moscow Synod does or decides? Do you understand that autocephaly of the thorough kind that Moscow granted in 1970 (Read the text of the Tomos here), not like the quasi-autocephalies engineered by the Phanar that are more restrictive than autonomies granted by the MP (as in Ukraine) forbid any compulsion of the OCA by foreign agencies? To float this idea that the OCA owes Moscow anything sounds curiously like the invidious rumors that circulate in some quarters that the OCA pays a tithe to Moscow and that they purchased their Tomos. These are the kind of lies that are whispered by haters of the Local Church in North America. I only repeat them here to say how preposterous they are.

 

[rakovsky]

But it makes no sense to replace the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria but not replace the bishop of Rome for the same reasons under the same circumstances.

There are plenty of other reasons than "We believe that Rome is supreme over us" to explain why bishops in Antioch and Alexandria could be reappointed but a bishop of Rome would not, like whether (A) RCs or EOs had political power in Rome for many centuries since c. 1000 AD when this kind of appointment would happen, (B) whether there were very many EOs living in Rome in c. 1000 AD sufficient to reappoint a patriarch there, etc.

 

[rakovsky]

So if the Church of Russia does formally anathematize Patriarch Bartholomew at their synod next month, is the OCA bound by that? I believe they are in attendance as well. But, since the OCA is autocephalous, I don’t know if the decision is binding on them. I imagine they will ride the fence here in America

It would only be binding on them if the Russian Church decided to cut ties with all churches still in communion with the CP, which I expect that they won't.
If the MP cut ties with the CP, the OCA would lose communion not only with the MP, but also with the churches like the CP, Greece, and I guess the JP, who who consider the OCA to be still part of Moscow.

 

[Samn!]

But it makes no sense to replace the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria but not replace the bishop of Rome for the same reasons under the same circumstances.

But there was never a pressing pastoral need to replace the bishop of Rome and it was almost always politically impossible in any case. There's no metaphysical content to these sees, just what's practically best for the faithful.

 

[FULK NERA]

It would only be binding on them if the Russian Church decided to cut ties with all churches still in communion with the CP, which I expect that they won't.
If the MP cut ties with the CP, the OCA would lose communion not only with the MP, but also with the churches like the CP, Greece, and I guess the JP, who who consider the OCA to be still part of Moscow.

Absolutely not. The OCA is sovereign. We and any other Local Church are not compelled to kowtow to any foreign head but decide locally what suits. Moscow may rail at those of us who remain neutral but they won’t isolate themselves by excommunicating the rest of us who have not kowtowed to Istanbul. There is so much historical precedence, even very recent(Cf. Estonia 1990s) to gainsay your extreme opinion.

 

[rakovsky]

6. KP Filaret and some other clergy left the OCU to start a small break away church.
7. The OCU declared that KP Filaret was no longer part of the OCU and that all consecrations performed by KP Filaret were invalid (and I take it that they meant this retroactively). KP's Filaret's UOC-KP breakaway church, in commenting on this decision, gave a press release noting that the OCU "primate" himself was consecrated by KP Filaret.

So in conclusion, it's hard to try to get the OCU's ordinations to make sense in the way that you are asking about. KP Filaret imposed the consecrations at a time when both the MP and CP agreed that KP Filaret was defrocked. Then the KP decided that the OCU was canonical, so it implies that the CP was indirectly validating the OCU hierarch's own consecrations. But then the OCU announced that all consecrations by KP Filaret were invalid, and they didn't draw an exception for consecrations made by KP Filaret on OCU clergy.

...
In conclusion, you need to decide whether CP Bartholomew had jurisdiction in Ukraine sufficient for him to declare the OCU canonical along with its clergy, and you need to decide if the OCU in effect revoked their own consecrations when they said that they revoked the consecrations performed by KP Filaret.

It looks like I misread Wikipedia on whether the OCU invalidated all of KP Filaret's consecrations made after 1992. The OCU's press release is just saying that all consecrations by KP Filaret after he left the OCU are invalid:

The [OCU] Synod stated that Patriarch Emeritus Filaret, as bishop of peace, was imposed a canonical ban to perform any consecrations. The clergymen who are nominated as bishops in a non-standard way are not the bishops, and all those consecrated by them have no valid holy order (see rule 4 of the Second Ecumenical Council).

OCU Synod suspend Filaret’s activities and bans to perform consecrations - RISU

On February 4, 2020, the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Orthodox Church of Ukraine) met at the Congregational Hall of the Kyiv Orthodox Theological Academy presided over by His Beatitude Metropolitan Epifaniy of Kyiv and All Ukraine. - RISU

risu.ua

The KP Filaret was responding to imply that the OCU declaration was ironic because the OCU hierarchs imposing this decision had themselves been consecrated by KP Filaret after the MP banned the KP from consecrating clergy.

 

[rakovsky]

It would only be binding on them if the Russian Church decided to cut ties with all churches still in communion with the CP, which I expect that they won't.
If the MP cut ties with the CP, the OCA would lose communion not only with the MP, but also with the churches like the CP, Greece, and I guess the JP, who who consider the OCA to be still part of Moscow.

Fulk Nera is giving me the Angry face for this. I was basing it on the recognition of autocephaly. Wikipedia says,

Currently, the Russian, Bulgarian, Georgian, Polish, Serbian, and Czech and Slovak churches recognize the autocephaly of the OCA,

The problem is just theoretical though at this point.

 

[FULK NERA]

Fulk Nera is giving me the Angry face for this.

Wikipedia says,

How does the recognition or not among other autocephalies of the the Tomos Moscow freely gave the OCA impugn its sovereignty? If Moscow anathematize Patr. Bartholomew they do not then become the Primus sine paribus.

 

[melkite]

There are plenty of other reasons than "We believe that Rome is supreme over us" to explain why bishops in Antioch and Alexandria could be reappointed but a bishop of Rome would not, like whether (A) RCs or EOs had political power in Rome for many centuries since c. 1000 AD when this kind of appointment would happen, (B) whether there were very many EOs living in Rome in c. 1000 AD sufficient to reappoint a patriarch there, etc.

I imagine there were as many EOs living in Rome c. 1000AD as there were EOs living in Alexandria c. 400AD, i.e., besides a tiny Greek ghetto, virtually none.

 

[melkite]

But there was never a pressing pastoral need to replace the bishop of Rome and it was almost always politically impossible in any case. There's no metaphysical content to these sees, just what's practically best for the faithful.

There was no pressing pastoral need for them to replace the bishop of Alexandria, either. Antioch, sure. There were a significant number of Christians there who remained faithful to Chalcedon. But almost the entire church of Alexandria went into schism.

 

[rakovsky]

I imagine there were as many EOs living in Rome c. 1000AD as there were EOs living in Alexandria c. 400AD, i.e., besides a tiny Greek ghetto, virtually none.

First, I dispute your estimation about the number of EO Chalcedonians vs. Oriental Orthodox in the Middle East and Africa, as if it was just a "Greek ghetto." The Church in Jerusalem for example seems rather divided. The Assyrian Church of the East, for example, was Nestorian, which is the opposite of the OOs. The Churches in those regions were so divided on the topic that there were even unions of EOs and OOs in those places during the Acacian Schism, and the Syrian OO Church accepted some of Chalcedon's canons.

Second, you need to consider the power lineup involved. The Byzantine empire (EO-leaning) controlled Antioch and Alexandria in c. 350-700 AD, but did not control Rome in 1000 AD up to today. Even today, it's not conceivable that the EOs would put an EO HQ bishopric see in the Vatican. At best, they could put one in the rest of Rome's city, starting from the time when Italy had enough religious freedom for this, like from the time of Garibaldi or post-WW2.

By analogy, just because Jews don't rebuild their Temple on the Temple Mount doesn't mean that they believe that Islam is correct or that they should not have a Temple.

Third, like I said, there are lots of reasons why the EO Church could put bishops in Antioch and Alexandria, but not in Rome, other than "Yes, Rome is right that it should control us." A third reason is that the difference between EOs and OOs was traditionally seen as a key Christological issue, whether Jesus is only God (a common view from EOs about OOs in the past), whereas the debate from Rome could be seen as more of a jurisdictional power issue, ie. that Rome was excommunicating Constantinople for failing to obey Rome. In the case of the OOs, they would need to change their Christology (per this scheme), but in the case of Rome, they just needed to stop calling themselves Prime Sine Paribus.

A fourth reason could be that there was a hope that Rome would turn from its conflict with the EOs, whereas the conflict with the OOs could have been seen as more protracted and deeper.

 

[Tzimis]

First, I dispute your estimation about the number of EO Chalcedonians vs. Oriental Orthodox in the Middle East and Africa, as if it was just a "Greek ghetto." The Church in Jerusalem for example seems rather divided. The Assyrian Church of the East, for example, was Nestorian, which is the opposite of the OOs. The Churches in those regions were so divided on the topic that there were even unions of EOs and OOs in those places during the Acacian Schism, and the Syrian OO Church accepted some of Chalcedon's canons.

Second, you need to consider the power lineup involved. The Byzantine empire (EO-leaning) controlled Antioch and Alexandria in c. 350-700 AD, but did not control Rome in 1000 AD up to today. Even today, it's not conceivable that the EOs would put an EO HQ bishopric see in the Vatican. At best, they could put one in the rest of Rome's city, starting from the time when Italy had enough religious freedom for this, like from the time of Garibaldi or post-WW2.

By analogy, just because Jews don't rebuild their Temple on the Temple Mount doesn't mean that they believe that Islam is correct or that they should not have a Temple.

Third, like I said, there are lots of reasons why the EO Church could put bishops in Antioch and Alexandria, but not in Rome, other than "Yes, Rome is right that it should control us." A third reason is that the difference between EOs and OOs was traditionally seen as a key Christological issue, whether Jesus is only God (a common view from EOs about OOs in the past), whereas the debate from Rome could be seen as more of a jurisdictional power issue, ie. that Rome was excommunicating Constantinople for failing to obey Rome. In the case of the OOs, they would need to change their Christology (per this scheme), but in the case of Rome, they just needed to stop calling themselves Prime Sine Paribus.

A fourth reason could be that there was a hope that Rome would turn from its conflict with the EOs, whereas the conflict with the OOs could have been seen as more protracted and deeper.

Christian Rome was always in the hands of Constantinople. Always in control of it since the onset. The Pope is an eastern plant to control the wests people from a far. That's why there was no emperor there for centuries.
The fracture began when the western pope decided to elect a new Emperor. Which eventually split the empire. As the west gained strength, the east was losing ground to the muslims. One could argue that the pope is a fictitious player in all this. Was planted by the east just to control the masses.
Turned on its owner and ushered in the German rule. They also renamed themselves as the holy roman empire.

 

[melkite]

First, I dispute your estimation about the number of EO Chalcedonians vs. Oriental Orthodox in the Middle East and Africa, as if it was just a "Greek ghetto." The Church in Jerusalem for example seems rather divided. The Assyrian Church of the East, for example, was Nestorian, which is the opposite of the OOs. The Churches in those regions were so divided on the topic that there were even unions of EOs and OOs in those places during the Acacian Schism, and the Syrian OO Church accepted some of Chalcedon's canons.

Second, you need to consider the power lineup involved. The Byzantine empire (EO-leaning) controlled Antioch and Alexandria in c. 350-700 AD, but did not control Rome in 1000 AD up to today. Even today, it's not conceivable that the EOs would put an EO HQ bishopric see in the Vatican. At best, they could put one in the rest of Rome's city, starting from the time when Italy had enough religious freedom for this, like from the time of Garibaldi or post-WW2.

By analogy, just because Jews don't rebuild their Temple on the Temple Mount doesn't mean that they believe that Islam is correct or that they should not have a Temple.

Third, like I said, there are lots of reasons why the EO Church could put bishops in Antioch and Alexandria, but not in Rome, other than "Yes, Rome is right that it should control us." A third reason is that the difference between EOs and OOs was traditionally seen as a key Christological issue, whether Jesus is only God (a common view from EOs about OOs in the past), whereas the debate from Rome could be seen as more of a jurisdictional power issue, ie. that Rome was excommunicating Constantinople for failing to obey Rome. In the case of the OOs, they would need to change their Christology (per this scheme), but in the case of Rome, they just needed to stop calling themselves Prime Sine Paribus.

A fourth reason could be that there was a hope that Rome would turn from its conflict with the EOs, whereas the conflict with the OOs could have been seen as more protracted and deeper.

I don't think I said anywhere that I thought the priest who told me this believed this because he accepted some kind of Roman supremacy. This is not what I meant, so I apologize if I wrote something poorly that gave that impression. I meant that, given the above, even if he did not accept that supremacy to any degree, he seemed to think Rome should be treated differently than Antioch or Alexandria were treated. I'm not sure why it should matter about being within the boundaries of the Empire at the time. Kyiv was never part of the Byzantine Empire, so why appoint bishops there? Orthodoxy today appoints non-missionary bishops outside of their traditional jurisdiction, so it doesn't make sense that boundaries alone would play any part in their decision not to appoint a new bishop of Rome. In Alexandria, almost all Christians sided with Dioscorus. So it also doesn't make sense that Orthodoxy would have not appointed a new bishop in Rome because of a small number of Orthodox that remained in Rome. The answer that they were waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy doesn't really add up.

 

[Tzimis]

I don't think I said anywhere that I thought the priest who told me this believed this because he accepted some kind of Roman supremacy. This is not what I meant, so I apologize if I wrote something poorly that gave that impression. I meant that, given the above, even if he did not accept that supremacy to any degree, he seemed to think Rome should be treated differently than Antioch or Alexandria were treated. I'm not sure why it should matter about being within the boundaries of the Empire at the time. Kyiv was never part of the Byzantine Empire, so why appoint bishops there? Orthodoxy today appoints non-missionary bishops outside of their traditional jurisdiction, so it doesn't make sense that boundaries alone would play any part in their decision not to appoint a new bishop of Rome. In Alexandria, almost all Christians sided with Dioscorus. So it also doesn't make sense that Orthodoxy would have not appointed a new bishop in Rome because of a small number of Orthodox that remained in Rome. The answer that they were waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy doesn't really add up.

Because it now belongs to the European union.

 

[melkite]

Because it now belongs to the European union.

So does Rome.

 

[Tzimis]

So does Rome.

Yeah. Turkey hasn't signed up yet.

 

[Tzimis]

Delete post

 

[rakovsky]

I don't think I said anywhere that I thought the priest who told me this believed this because he accepted some kind of Roman supremacy. This is not what I meant, so I apologize if I wrote something poorly that gave that impression. I meant that, given the above, even if he did not accept that supremacy to any degree, he seemed to think Rome should be treated differently than Antioch or Alexandria were treated. I'm not sure why it should matter about being within the boundaries of the Empire at the time. Kyiv was never part of the Byzantine Empire, so why appoint bishops there? Orthodoxy today appoints non-missionary bishops outside of their traditional jurisdiction, so it doesn't make sense that boundaries alone would play any part in their decision not to appoint a new bishop of Rome. In Alexandria, almost all Christians sided with Dioscorus. So it also doesn't make sense that Orthodoxy would have not appointed a new bishop in Rome because of a small number of Orthodox that remained in Rome. The answer that they were waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy doesn't really add up.

I'm just going to be repeating myself, because you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

You are saying that the EOs appointed bishops for Antioch and Alexandria when those two patriarchs' leaders went outside of Eastern Orthodoxy, but that the EOs did not appoint a bishop for Rome when Rome became separated in the schism due to claiming Papal Supremacy. You conclude from these facts that the EOs must have failed to appoint a new EO bishop for Rome because the EOs believed that Papal Supremacy was correct, or that the RC Pope has a special status that other places like Antioch and Alexandria do not.

However, your reasoning has a big problem because it is overlooking that there can be OTHER REASONS than agreeing with Papal Supremacy that explain why the EOs appointed bishops in Antioch and not Rome.

One of those reasons is that the Byzantine empire sided with the EOs and controlled Antioch. So the EOs had the practical capability to appoint an EO bishop in Antioch. But the Western Roman Empire and governments were siding with Rome and controlled Rome. So the EOs COULD NOT APPOINT AN EO BISHOP IN ROME EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO. So the failure of the EOs to appoint a Pope in Rome is evidence that the Catholics controlled the city of Rome, but it is NOT evidence that the Papal ecclesiology was correct.

I gave other reasons too. I don't want to keep repeating the same discussion, sorry.

 

[Samn!]

There was no pressing pastoral need for them to replace the bishop of Alexandria, either. Antioch, sure. There were a significant number of Christians there who remained faithful to Chalcedon. But almost the entire church of Alexandria went into schism.

The Melkite population in Egypt immediately after Chalcedon was almost entirely urban, but it was pretty substantial. It didn't go off a cliff until al-Hakim's persecutions at the beginning of the 11th century.

 

[Tzimis]

Yeah. Turkey hasn't signed up yet.

Technically, mount athos isn't part of the EU either. Under European laws, they would have had to allow women. So to protect their rites they became a republic.

I'm getting the quote myself bug from Rakovsky

 

[melkite]

Yeah. Turkey hasn't signed up yet.

Well, neither has Ukraine.

 

[melkite]

I'm just going to be repeating myself, because you don't seem to understand what I am saying.

You are saying that the EOs appointed bishops for Antioch and Alexandria when those two patriarchs' leaders went outside of Eastern Orthodoxy, but that the EOs did not appoint a bishop for Rome when Rome became separated in the schism due to claiming Papal Supremacy. You conclude from these facts that the EOs must have failed to appoint a new EO bishop for Rome because the EOs believed that Papal Supremacy was correct, or that the RC Pope has a special status that other places like Antioch and Alexandria do not.

However, your reasoning has a big problem because it is overlooking that there can be OTHER REASONS than agreeing with Papal Supremacy that explain why the EOs appointed bishops in Antioch and not Rome.

One of those reasons is that the Byzantine empire sided with the EOs and controlled Antioch. So the EOs had the practical capability to appoint an EO bishop in Antioch. But the Western Roman Empire and governments were siding with Rome and controlled Rome. So the EOs COULD NOT APPOINT AN EO BISHOP IN ROME EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO. So the failure of the EOs to appoint a Pope in Rome is evidence that the Catholics controlled the city of Rome, but it is NOT evidence that the Papal ecclesiology was correct.

I gave other reasons too. I don't want to keep repeating the same discussion, sorry.

No, I understood you correctly. You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying.

I am not saying that the EOs didn't appoint a bishop for Rome because they claimed papal supremacy. You're adding this part when it isn't really relevant. I'm saying the EOs appointed bishops for Antioch and Alexandria when those two patriarchs went outside of Orthodoxy, but the EOs did not appoint a bishop for Rome when that patriarch went outside of Orthodoxy. The specifics of doctrinal disagreements in each case should not have a bearing on why new bishops were appointed for one but not the other. If an Orthodox bishop becomes a heretic, then that bishop is replaced with an Orthodox bishop. The bishopric isn't left vacant because of the specifics of the heresy.

When I asked for the reasons for this, the response I was given was that the EOs were waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy. That's it. I wasn't given other reasons. I asked specifically why Rome wasn't replaced, and I was told because you were waiting for Rome to return to you. If there are other answers, fine. I wasn't given them by this particular priest, nor did he imply there were any other reasons.

The Byzantine Empire siding with the EOs only goes so far. It doesn't fully answer the question I am asking. At varying times, the Byzantine emperors pushed for union with Rome when it was politically advantageous for them. So at times, the Empire sided with Rome against the Eastern patriarchates. If I understand it correctly, there are only a handful of these occasions to draw from as examples, so I know it's not a strong counterpoint. It may be more of an anomaly than anything. But it does suggest there was something more to the issue than waiting for Rome to return. Additionally, when the Muslims conquered Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, the Chalcedonian patriarchs fled to Constantinople for a period. From the EO perspective, at least at the time, there was nothing problematic with Orthodox patriarchs of territory under Islamic control residing in exile within territory still held by the empire. If this was not a problem for the Eastern patriarchates, then there is no logical reason the empire couldn't have done the same for Rome when Rome was outside of Byzantine territory.

If you are repeating yourself, it is because you are answering questions you think I'm asking, not the questions I'm actually asking.

 

[Samn!]

From the EO perspective, at least at the time, there was nothing problematic with Orthodox patriarchs of territory under Islamic control residing in exile within territory still held by the empire.

Strong disagree. The period of absentee patriarchs during the Crusader period was an obviously bad thing by the standards of Orthodox ecclesiology.

 

[melkite]

Strong disagree. The period of absentee patriarchs during the Crusader period was an obviously bad thing by the standards of Orthodox ecclesiology.

I understand it's not ideal. I didn't intend to suggest the Orthodox have no problem with absentee bishops at all; my wording was poor. But it's also something you're not absolutely against. Under the right circumstances, it is a tolerable situation for a period. Since the EOs decided not to have one appointed for Rome and reside in Constantinople until the empire was able to retake Rome, was there a reason they decided not to other than waiting for Rome to return?

 

[Samn!]

was there a reason they decided not to other than waiting for Rome to return?

Why would they have? They had neither political control nor a flock. In the Melkite patriarchates, there was always a flock, if no political control, so it's not an analogous situation. There was no more need absolutely to appoint a bishop of Rome than to appoint one of Lyons or Aquileia. It just wasn't the kind of thing that anyone would've ever seen a point in.

 

[Samn!]

But to go a bit further, Constantinople had no canonical right to appoint absentee bishops for the Melkite patriarchates. They did it in Antioch during the Crusader period on the basis of an imperial law, which was always protested as uncanonical by Antioch itself, that the emperor could appoint the Patriarch of Antioch that had been issued in the 980s, after the patriarch at the time had supported a rebellion. In principle, even if, as in the case of Alexandria in the 5th and 6th centuries, it required political cover to do so, the election of a bishop of a city is by and for the Orthodox flock of that city. Rome, not having an Orthodox flock, had no legitimate reason to have a bishop.

 

[melkite]

Why would they have? They had neither political control nor a flock. In the Melkite patriarchates, there was always a flock, if no political control, so it's not an analogous situation. There was no more need absolutely to appoint a bishop of Rome than to appoint one of Lyons or Aquileia. It just wasn't the kind of thing that anyone would've ever seen a point in.

Was it a complete schism, a clean break? The entire West at that moment didn't have a single Orthodox Christian left in it? This is going beyond my knowledge, so I honestly don't know. When the schism happened, there wasn't any small group of Christians in Rome who sided with the Orthodox?

 

[rakovsky]

From the EO perspective, at least at the time, there was nothing problematic with Orthodox patriarchs of territory under Islamic control residing in exile within territory still held by the empire. If this was not a problem for the Eastern patriarchates, then there is no logical reason the empire couldn't have done the same for Rome when Rome was outside of Byzantine territory.

One difference is practical and chronological in the case of the Caliphates.

In Antioch, the EOs appointed EO Bishops/Patriarchs there.
Then there was a schism with the OOs.
Byzantium still controlled the territory, so the EOs could keep EO bishops there in practice. Plus, there was still a significant EO population there in the Middle East that the bishops could shepherd there.
Then the Caliphates conquered the territory.
Then the EO bishops at some point fled.
Then at some point the Islamic rulers allowed the EO Patriarchs who claim jurisdiction over Antioch to return, even though there were already competing OO Patriarchs there.
So the EO Patriarchs returned to Antioch under Islamic rule.

In the case of Rome, when Rome split in the Schism 1000 years ago, There was an RC Pope in Rome and RC rulers controlled Rome's territory. There was no EO bishop there.
Then the RC Rulers continued to rule Rome, so the EOs could not in practice send an EO Pope to rule there. Plus, there were few EOs living in Rome.
Then the RC Rulers continued to rule Rome, which still was basically just a Roman Catholic population. The Roman Popes and rulers decided to allow a Jewish population to stay there, but they would NOT allow a Muslim ghetto under an Imam, or a Protestant ghetto, or an Orthodox ghetto under an EO patriarch claiming rule, or an "Anti-Pope" with no major Roman following. This is the reality of how things worked in medieval Rome. There was tolerance for allowing a limited Jewish population in Rome, but not for other Christian religious groups claiming jurisdiction over Rome.
Then until like the time of Garibaldi or even after WW2, having an EO Pope stationed in Rome was not a political feasibility.

So unlike in the case of the Muslims' rule in Syria:
- There was no significant EO population in Rome from 1060 AD until more modern times to the extent that there was in the Middle East
- The Roman western rulers were not going to allow an EO "dhimmi" community like the Muslim rulers did.
- The EOs did not have an EO Pope sitting in Rome under Byzantine Rome when a foreign set of rulers (like RC rulers or Muslim rulers came in). The EOs did not have an EO Patriarch in Rome sitting there in competition with OO bishops or clergy under Byzantine rule in a hypothetical period of RC rulers' invasion like there was in Syria under Byzantine rule before the Muslims invaded.

I am not aware of the RCs appointing a Patriarch for Constantinople currently, even though it has appointed bishops for Protestant countries like English and Germany. By your logic, the RCs' failure to appoint a Patriarch for Constantinople would imply that somehow the Constantinople Patriarch somehow is correct in its refusal to join Rome.

If I keep up the discussion on this topic, I am just going to be reiterating point that I already made in this thread.

I welcome you, Melkite, to open a separate thread on "Does the EOs' lack of an EO 'Pope' assigned for Rome suggest somehow that the RCs were correct about the Great Schism?"

 

[Katechon]

I am not aware of the RCs appointing a Patriarch for Constantinople currently, even though it has appointed bishops for Protestant countries like English and Germany. By your logic, the RCs' failure to appoint a Patriarch for Constantinople would imply that somehow the Constantinople Patriarch somehow is correct in its refusal to join Rome.

There actually was a "Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople": a rotten fruit of the Fourth Crusade. It existed as a titular see until I think Vatican II.

 

[melkite]

One difference is practical and chronological in the case of the Caliphates.

In Antioch, the EOs appointed EO Bishops/Patriarchs there.
Then there was a schism with the OOs.
Byzantium still controlled the territory, so the EOs could keep EO bishops there in practice. Plus, there was still a significant EO population there in the Middle East that the bishops could shepherd there.
Then the Caliphates conquered the territory.
Then the EO bishops at some point fled.
Then at some point the Islamic rulers allowed the EO Patriarchs who claim jurisdiction over Antioch to return, even though there were already competing OO Patriarchs there.
So the EO Patriarchs returned to Antioch under Islamic rule.

In the case of Rome, when Rome split in the Schism 1000 years ago, There was an RC Pope in Rome and RC rulers controlled Rome's territory. There was no EO bishop there.
Then the RC Rulers continued to rule Rome, so the EOs could not in practice send an EO Pope to rule there. Plus, there were few EOs living in Rome.
Then the RC Rulers continued to rule Rome, which still was basically just a Roman Catholic population. The Roman Popes and rulers decided to allow a Jewish population to stay there, but they would NOT allow a Muslim ghetto under an Imam, or a Protestant ghetto, or an Orthodox ghetto under an EO patriarch claiming rule, or an "Anti-Pope" with no major Roman following. This is the reality of how things worked in medieval Rome. There was tolerance for allowing a limited Jewish population in Rome, but not for other Christian religious groups claiming jurisdiction over Rome.
Then until like the time of Garibaldi or even after WW2, having an EO Pope stationed in Rome was not a political feasibility.

So unlike in the case of the Muslims' rule in Syria:
- There was no significant EO population in Rome from 1060 AD until more modern times to the extent that there was in the Middle East
- The Roman western rulers were not going to allow an EO "dhimmi" community like the Muslim rulers did.
- The EOs did not have an EO Pope sitting in Rome under Byzantine Rome when a foreign set of rulers (like RC rulers or Muslim rulers came in). The EOs did not have an EO Patriarch in Rome sitting there in competition with OO bishops or clergy under Byzantine rule in a hypothetical period of RC rulers' invasion like there was in Syria under Byzantine rule before the Muslims invaded.

I am not aware of the RCs appointing a Patriarch for Constantinople currently, even though it has appointed bishops for Protestant countries like English and Germany. By your logic, the RCs' failure to appoint a Patriarch for Constantinople would imply that somehow the Constantinople Patriarch somehow is correct in its refusal to join Rome.

If I keep up the discussion on this topic, I am just going to be reiterating point that I already made in this thread.

I welcome you, Melkite, to open a separate thread on "Does the EOs' lack of an EO 'Pope' assigned for Rome suggest somehow that the RCs were correct about the Great Schism?"

THIS explanation makes a lot of sense. Thank you for laying it out this way!

Would you say the Orthodox not appointing a new bishop for Rome can be reduced to this explanation alone, or were there other reasons (besides the ones you mentioned earlier in the thread - I understood these to be speculative on your part, correct me if I'm wrong)? Is this something that is commonly understood to be the reason? If so, I don't think there's a need to start a new thread, because if this is all there is, that answers the question I was asking. I am left wondering why the priest didn't say this instead of "we're waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy," though, but I have no idea how educated he is/was on this aspect of church history.

 

[rakovsky]

THIS explanation makes a lot of sense. Thank you for laying it out this way!

Would you say the Orthodox not appointing a new bishop for Rome can be reduced to this explanation alone, or were there other reasons (besides the ones you mentioned earlier in the thread - I understood these to be speculative on your part, correct me if I'm wrong)? Is this something that is commonly understood to be the reason? If so, I don't think there's a need to start a new thread, because if this is all there is, that answers the question I was asking. I am left wondering why the priest didn't say this instead of "we're waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy," though, but I have no idea how educated he is/was on this aspect of church history.

Probably "We are waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy" or "...reconcile with EOs" is one of the main reasons why EOs don't appoint an EO Roman Pope, but I guess that it's not a theological official reason, and there are also historical, practical reasons.

In Jerusalem in the 5th century, Patriarch Juvenaly it seems at first sympathized with the OOs, but then joined the EO side. So the Middle East was internally divided on the EO - OO split. If Rome was officially under Byzantine rule in the 11th century, or half of Rome, or half of the bishops, or half of the line of Popes took the EO side against the RCs, you would be dealing with a different set of circumstances regarding the likelihood of appointing an EO Pope.

I suggest making a separate thread in the Catholic section if you want to continue on this topic.

 

[Tzimis]

Probably "We are waiting for Rome to return to Orthodoxy" or "...reconcile with EOs" is one of the main reasons why EOs don't appoint an EO Roman Pope, but I guess that it's not a theological official reason, and there are also historical, practical reasons.

In Jerusalem in the 5th century, Patriarch Juvenaly it seems at first sympathized with the OOs, but then joined the EO side. So the Middle East was internally divided on the EO - OO split. If Rome was officially under Byzantine rule in the 11th century, or half of Rome, or half of the bishops, or half of the line of Popes took the EO side against the RCs, you would be dealing with a different set of circumstances regarding the likelihood of appointing an EO Pope.

I suggest making a separate thread in the Catholic section if you want to continue on this topic.

I agree, but the current trend is more about "accepting us for who we are", instead of back tracking and making us look wrong.
Everybody fears that if they are wrong, they need a life line to the other. My feeling is they will fudge something together eventually. For the wrong reasons of course.

 

[srba]

It would help your case if you'd actually be able to provide an example of what Moscow did wrong in Constantinople invading their canonical territory, instead of just making spineless assertions about "both being wrong".

Exactly.

The Synod of the Church of Russia is meeting in November (I think?) to decide whether or not they will formally anathematize Patriarch Bartholomew. If they do indeed decide to do this then it will be a game changer for world Orthodoxy since anathematizing is a huge deal...I mean a break in communion is one thing that is major but a formal anathema is another step.

IMHO, "primus sine paribus" theology should be anathemized, as well as a relational ontology of Metr. Zlizloulas, but the latter should be carefully studied beforehand to embrace everything wrong in it. I am not sure if anyone has already done that.

 

[Samn!]

the latter should be carefully studied beforehand to embrace everything wrong in it. I am not sure if anyone has already done that.

It's been done ad nauseam, most prominently by Jean-Claude Larchet. There's also been quite a lot written about it in Romanian.

 

[rakovsky]

By this way of thinking, all churches which have not broken communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Alexandria are by extension under the same anathema, and Moscow, for its failure to break communion with all of those churches, itself falls under the same anathema. This common dictum that communion with schismatics renders a bishop himself schismatic falls into absurd incoherence when its application is understood as being an immediate and automatic process.

Dear Cavaradossi:
Let me answer what you wrote above in several parts:
A. Here is a hypothetical scenario that shows differences:
Cyprus recognizes a tiny schismatic Church in Serbia as the new "Church of Serbia", because it has deliberately put itself in direct union with the tiny schismatic Church. Thus, Cyprus could be considered to have made itself "schismatic" in the eyes of the Orthodox Church of Serbia, and the latter suspends communion with Cyprus.

Meanwhile, the Church of Poland remains in communion with Cyprus, but continues to officially consider the tiny schismatic Church "schismatic". Only in some indirect sense could it be considered to be in communion with the tiny schismatic group, and the Orthodox Serbian Church decides to use its flexibility or ekonomia to avoid suspending relations with Poland.

B. There are good historical analogies to show this too. Some Melkites claim that they are just "Orthodox in communion with Rome." Imagine if CP Bartholomew were to officially announce reunion and recommunion with Rome without openly accepting Rome's special, contested teachings on his part. It would be pretty common for EOs to say that CP Bartholomew went into Unia with Rome, as if he were at least schismatic. Yet historically, there was a long period in medieval times when Constantinople was out of communion with Rome yet some other EO Patriarchates still were in communion with both.

C. The MP cited a Church rule that says that union with schismatics schismates oneself. But this rule may not countenance a whole chain of schismations like you suggest, whereby union with schismatics schismates oneself and everyone else with whom one is in communion.

D. In the case of the CP's recognition of the OCU, the relevant issue is not just the fact of union with schismatics. Rather, there is an ecclesiological and doctrinal aspect due to the way that it was performed. The CP has repeatedly said that it got the authority to reinstate Met. Philaret of the UOC KP and legitimize the OCU based on his powers as supreme primate over all EOs. At least once he even said that it was not even an issue of his (long abandoned) past claims to Ukraine from centuries ago as has sometimes been averred.

If a patriarch like Theodore of Alexandria is going to recognize the OCU as now canonical, then what is P. Theodore's explanation for the OCU's canonicity? It would seem to have to rely on a theory that the CP had the authority to canonicize the OCU. That is, P. Theodore would have to be accepting the CP's uncanonical assertions of authority.

I guess that one could theorize that the CP only canonicized the OCU by reinstating his long abandoned territorial claims, and not by exercising his supposed supremacy powers. Nonetheless, there are still other problems with the canonicization of the OCU besides just the "First without Equals" authority issue.

The Churches of Poland, Serbia, etc. would not be making such actions treating the CP's actions as legitimate, and not de facto accepting the CP's new First Without Equals theology, despite remaining in union with the CP.