| The Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church will meet in June this year, according to the Athens News Agency-Macedonian Press Agency (ANA-MPA). A decision was made as the Primates are gathered in a Synaxis at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy, Geneva, whose work is done under the presidency of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. Of course, for the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church to meet in June, during the period of Pentecost (06/19/2016), the Primates in Geneva must definitely choose the themes and regulations. The decision to convene the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church in Crete, rather than at the headquarters (Constantinople) of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, was dictated by the " exceptional objective circumstances " (i.e. the recent Russo-Turkish crisis), which basically prevents the Moscow Patriarch Kyrill and his delegation from visiting the City. That is why this Synaxis of Primates is meeting in Geneva and not in the Phanar, as originally planned. The gathering in Geneva involves eleven of the fourteen Primates, with their delegations. Three are missing: Patriarch John of Antioch, Metropolitan Savvas of Warsaw and All Poland for health reason, and Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece for personal reasons. The work of the Synaxis will continue until January 28th. The convocation, " barring the unexpected, " of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church this year in Constantinople was decided in March 2014 at the Synaxis of the Primates, which had gathered at the Phanar. The themes of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church includes the following ten topics: 1. The Orthodox Diaspora. 2. The manner in which Autocephaly is assigned. 3. The manner of the administration of Autonomy in semi-independent Churches within the limits of Autocephalous Churches, such as the Orthodox Church of Finland under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 4. The Diptychs. This is the order of the Autocephalous Churches, according to honor and ranking, by which the Primates are commemorated. The order of the Churches may change. (For example, the Church of Cyprus, although it is one of the most ancient and was recognized by the Third Ecumenical Synod in Ephesus in 431, is tenth in the order, having been surpassed by Patriarchates, which have been granted Autocephaly in recent times by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and not by an Ecumenical Synod.) |
| Statement on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Plans to Grand Autocephaly to Ukrainian Schismatics Source: OrthoChristian On September 17, 2018, we published the news piece, “ Greek Metropolitan Calls on Constantinople to Repent and Cease Communication with Ukrainian Schismatics ,” presenting thoughts from Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s ongoing dealings with Ukrainian schismatics, with the intention of granting a tomos of autocephaly and thereby creating a new Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The Ecumenical Patriarchate announced on September 7 that he was sending two exarch bishops to Kiev to oversee and facilitate this process—an uncanonical action, as no blessing was sought from nor given by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, the primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. In response, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church announced on September 14 that it was ceasing liturgical commemoration of His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and episcopal concelebrations, and that the Russian Orthodox Church was withdrawing from any organizations or committees chaired or co-chaired by representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The Synod was also clear that this is not a break in Eucharistic communion. We now present here the full text of Met. Seraphim’s interview with Alexander Stefanopoulos, a Greek journalist in New York, for his “Greek American News Agency” and posted on Met. Seraphim’s diocesan website : I am deeply upset, dear Mr. Alexander Stefanopoulos, by the Russian Patriarch’s cessation of ecclesiastical communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch. 1 This sad and unfortunate result was brought about by the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s persistence in granting autocephaly to Ukrainian schismatics who are cut off from our holy Orthodox Church, that is, from all Orthodox patriarchates and autocephalous Local Orthodox Churches, and who represent a negligible minority of the Ukrainian people. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Alexandria, Patriarchate of MATTHEW J. PEREIRA The patriarchate of Alexandria flourished as one of the premier centers of Eastern Christian intellectual, ecclesial, and political life until the middle of the 7th century. Initially, the patriarchate of Alexandria was ranked second to Rome in ecclesial priority. In 381 the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council declared that the patriarchate of Constantinople would henceforth rank higher than Alexandria and thus it assumed precedence in the whole East, a state of affairs initially resisted in Egypt. In 451 the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the priority of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Alexandria. Despite being overshadowed by the sees of Rome and Constantinople, the patriarchate of Alexandria undoubtedly set the foundational framework and trajectory for Christian theology. For example, the Logos theologians of Alexandria, most notably Clement (ca. 150–215) and Origen (ca. 185-ca. 251), significantly shaped future patristic reflections upon the person and nature of Jesus Christ. Also, Alexandrian hierarchs such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 293–373) and St. Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378–444) advanced what would become the classical Orthodox expression of the mystery of the incarnate Lord. Within the Roman Empire, theological and political allegiances often aligned together in ways that could either strengthen or weaken any given patriarchate, whether Rome, Constantinople, or another major see. In this volatile context, the patriarchate of Alexandria managed to grow into a significant political force. Further, in the 3rd century, Egyptian monasticism developed into a burgeoning movement that indelibly shaped Alexandrian Christianity (Chitty 1999). In brief, the convergence of the ecclesial, political, theological, and monastic streams into one dynamic confluence infused Alexandrian Christianity with long-lasting vitality. The following summary begins with a brief historical sketch of the city of Alexandria, followed by a list of the patriarchs of Alexandria from the 1st century up to the 8th. There then follows an overview of the most influential bishops, pivotal councils, and exceptional theological and spiritual movements that bear witness to the enduring significance of the patriarchate of Alexandria. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy The Origins of the " Barbarian Lands " Theory: The Greek Archdiocese of America and the Interpretation of Canon 28 of Chalcedon The following arcticle by Matthew Namee was originally published on the website of Orthodox History In 1924, the future Patriarch Christophoros of Alexandria, then Metropolitan of Leontopolis, published an article called “The Position of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church.” Christophoros opens by explaining the reason for his study: “the tendency that the Ecumenical Patriarchate has had over the past two years to desire to extend its spiritual jurisdiction over every ecclesiastical territory or every community which, for one reason or another, was or appeared to be deprived of regular spiritual government and oversight, which one describes as ‘Churches of the Diaspora.’” Christophoros presents this as something novel, something that has emerged “over the past two years” – that is, since 1922. One of the keystone prerogatives claimed by the Ecumenical Patriarchate is its jurisdiction over the so-called “diaspora” – regions not included within the geographic boundaries of the other Autocephalous Churches. Many Churches don’t accept this claim, evidenced by the presence of Antiochian, Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, and Georgian jurisdictions here in the United States and elsewhere in the diaspora. But the Ecumenical Patriarchate insists that this exclusive extraterritorial jurisdiction is in fact ancient, rooted in Canon 28 of Chalcedon, the Fourth Ecumenical Council, in the year 451. Canon 28 is a fascinating text. First, it acknowledges that the Bishop of Constantinople now has privileges equal to the Bishop of Rome, due to the fact that Constantinople is now the imperial capital and the seat of the senate. In the second half of the canon, it declares, |
| Pretty soon, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is set to begin an information campaign of why its actions in Ukraine were justified, and how “bad information” in social networks is misportraying this master plan of creating unity and “peace and love in Christ”. It is likely what I have to say here will be received by some as “Russian disinformation”, but I will dare to make my opinion known to my fellow Orthodox Greeks and others, in hope it will at least make them think more deeply about the potential consequences of what just happened this January in the Phanar. 1. The Ecumenical Patriarchate stepped into a civil conflict at the invitation of just one of the conflicting parties. This is not a mediation, it is an act of taking sides. Therefore, the Ecumenical Patriarchate cannot call itself a mediator in a conflict, it is a co-belligerent. History has shown that foreign parties that become involved in a civil conflict will not be looked upon favorably by either side if the conflict ever resolves. 2. The level of the Moscow Synod’s involvement with the affairs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate does not affect either the day to day operations of the church, nor its strategic orientation. During the civil war in Ukraine, Metropolitan Onuphry called upon both sides to cease violence, whereas the schismatic jurisdictions that form the backbone of the new Ukrainian jurisdiction took a clear stance in the conflict and backed the new Ukrainian government’s assault on its own civilians in Donbass, with the false Patriarch Philaret (now carrying the honorary ‘patriarch’ title in the new church structure) calling for blood vengeance against the anti-government faction. This shows, clearly, that one side is more politicized than the other. There was no pressing need for the faithful of Ukraine to have a different church, the only reason for the existence of the schismatic jurisdictions was and remains political. There is no ‘loyalty to Russia’ required of the canonical Ukrainian church’s clergy or flock. |
| Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew: Our faith should not be regarded as stagnant or even obsolete Source: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople Address by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew To the Scholars’ Meeting at the Phanar (January 5, 2016) AP Photo/Shakh Aivazov Beloved and distinguished scholars, We warmly welcome you all to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to the Church of Constantinople, the Church of St. Andrew “the first-called of the Apostles” and his disciple, St. Stachys of “the Seventy Apostles,” an institution with a history spanning seventeen centuries, during which it has retained its administrative offices in this very city through times of majesty and times of martyrdom. As you all know very well and appreciate through your studies, this extraordinary region is filled with significance for our Church. It is here that St. John (the Apostle of love) wrote his Gospel; it is here that St. Paul (the Apostle to the nations) addressed the earliest Apostolic communities; it is here – in Asia Minor, not in Greece or Italy – that all of the earliest councils of the Church that defined and shaped the Christian doctrine were convened; and it is here that the spiritual treasures of Byzantium – its profound theological, spiritual and cultural legacy – have been faithfully maintained to this day. Nevertheless, as you are also aware and as you surely understand, Orthodoxy is a faith at once rooted in the past, yet at the same time a Church looking toward the future. It is characterized by a profound sense of continuity with the times and teachings of the Apostolic Church and the Church of the Fathers; but it is also a Church that draws from its rich heritage in order to respond to modern challenges and dilemmas. It is precisely this dual nature that permits Orthodoxy to speak boldly about critical contemporary issues – precisely because it is a “living tradition.” Dear friends, you are here at a critical time, a complex time, a challenging time – both for our Orthodox Church but also for the entire world. We have invited you for this personal encounter and exchange at the Phanar because we consider you as a small representative group of a much larger segment of our Church, a symbol of our loving concern for all those ministering to the Word of God in manifold ways throughout the world. You comprise theologians and historians, scholars and teachers, women and men from the United States and Europe, as well as from Asia and Australia. You educate and work with a wide range of people – Orthodox and non-Orthodox, Christian and non-Christian, academic and ecumenical – translating the fundamental principles of our faith in response to the vital challenges of our time. |
| Metropolitan Hilarion: If the Project for Ukrainian Autocephaly is Carried Through, it will Mean a Tragic and Possibly Irretrievable Schism of the Whole Orthodoxy Source: DECR Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relation, has given an interview to the Greek newspaper Ethnos tis Kiriakis. – Your Eminence, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has published for the first time some historical documents that prove that the Ukrainian Church has never withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical throne. We would like to hear your opinion on this problem. – The official site of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has published only two documents about a move of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate as its part, and it is not done for the first time, they are well known in our country and have been published since the 19 th century. Its preface abounds in inaccuracies and ungrounded conclusions. But we are glad to have a possibility for a discussion, though distant, and ready to broaden the academic outlook of our opponents. Now it is at least clearer what reasoning they wish to rely on. The first articles of leading Russian historians on the canonical unity of the Russian Church and transfer of the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate have been published in a recent issue of the Department for External Church Relation’s journal Church and Time. Recently a new issue has come out with a substantial article by Mikhail Zheltov entitled ‘The Historical-Canonical Foundations of the Unity of the Russian Church’, which gives a detail account of the events of the year 1686 and demolishes ungrounded opinions of some biased researchers. These publications will continue so that the attentive reader could have an opportunity for making an objective evaluation of the arguments put forwards by the both sides. We will translate these academic materials into Greek as well. By the end of this year, we plan to publish a substantial study that includes hundreds of sheets of archive documents – many of them will be really publish for the first time. Some of them are already available on the Orthodox Encyclopaedia portal. Naturally, it is impossible to relate this body of testimonies in a brief interview. I can only say that allegations about a ‘temporary nature’ of the Metropolis of Kiev’s transfer to the Moscow Patriarchate come from a tendentious and scientifically unscrupulous interpretation of the documents signed by Patriarch Dionysios in 1686. Believe me we are ready for an objective and fundamental discussion. Moreover, we have proposed a serious dialogue on this matter to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a joint conference. So far no response. After all, the case in question is very important as it concerns many millions of Orthodox Ukrainians. |
| “To merely tolerate one another is, in reality, a process of separating yourself from the other” Source: The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople Greeting By His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew On the Occasion of the 21st Anniversary of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy. Delivered by His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of France Moscow, 26 June 2014 Esteemed Dignitaries, Dear Friends, On behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, we would like to congratulate you on the occasion of the 21st anniversary of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy. We especially congratulate all of the young scholars and winners of the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy International Scientific essay contest, and we look forward to the contributions these young people will make in the future. It is with joy that we deliver greetings to you from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which is a symbol of unity and serves the Orthodox Church, promoting solidarity throughout the world for nearly two millennia. We thank God for each of you and your willingness to discuss the important subject of “Parliamentary Democracy – Christianity – Orthodoxy”. In reflecting upon the values of this topic in public life, the success of the twelve Apostles came to our mind, and we are humbled with the thought that from these twelve Apostles in the first century after Christ’s crucifixion, the Christian presence in the world has flourished now to over two billion Christians. This fact alone clearly demonstrates that Christianity has something to offer humanity. Of the two billion Christians in the world, 300 million are Orthodox – many of which are from the countries represented here. Εach Orthodox Patriarchate is able to trace their Christian heritage to one of the first twelve Apostles of Christ. In this part of the world, our Apostolic ancestor to some extent is St. Andrew, who was invited by Christ Himself to “come and see”. As you are assembled this week, perhaps this sacred invitation to “come and see” could serve as a basis for what parliamentary democracy can learn from Christianity – what can be learned from going out into all the world and propagating a message of peace to a variety of people? There are many values that can be shared, but the one thing that has the ability to revolutionize the world is found in the words of Christ: “You shall love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 8. TOWARD GREATER UNITY AND WITNESS The quest for greater administrative unity among the Orthodox jurisdictions in America found concrete expression in the establishment of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA) in 1960. Building upon the tradition of the earlier federation, SCOBA began to oversee the various inter-Orthodox activities and to coordinate ecumenical witness, which was born during the 1950s. It also became the focal point of efforts to establish a Provincial Synod of Orthodox Bishops, which would better serve the needs of Orthodox faithful and better reflect the organizational principles of Orthodox ecclesiology. 237 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SCOBA About two years after his arrival in this country to become head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in 1949, Archbishop Michael (Constantinides) convened a meeting of Orthodox bishops on 12 March 1952. Participating in this historic gathering were Metropolitan Anthony (Bashir) of the Syrian (Antiochian) Orthodox Archdiocese, Metropolitan Leonty (Turkevich) of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church (Metropolia), Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) of the Russian Orthodox Synod Abroad, Metropolitan Markary (Illinsky) of the Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Bishop Orestes (Chornak) of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic diocese, and Bishop Bogdan (Spilka) of the Ukrainian Orthodox diocese. The latter two jurisdictions were dioceses of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, like the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, 238 The meeting was significant if only because the heads of the three Russian Orthodox jurisdictions met together. There were intense rivalry and disputes between these jurisdictions resulting from divergent claims of authority in America and very different understanding of the authority of the Patriarchate of Moscow. The Exarchate was directly responsible to the Moscow Patriarchate. The Metropolia was in formal schism from the Moscow Patriarchate since 1924 but open to some form of mutual recognition. The Synod Abroad had only recently established its headquarters in New York as hundreds of its members came to the United States fleeing from further Communist advances in the Balkans and the Far East. The Synod Abroad was composed of Russian exiles who were staunch monarchists and who claimed that the Moscow Patriarchate had no authority because of cooperation with the Communist government. In addition to these significant differences, each jurisdiction saw itself as the rightful and canonical continuation of the old Alaskan mission. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: Decision demanded by church canons was taken today A briefing for journalists was held after the session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church that took place in Minsk on October 15, 2018. Metropolitan Hilarion, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, told the mass media representatives about decisions taken at the session. “The decision on the complete cessation of the Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople was taken today. This is a forced decision, but our Holy Synod could not take another one as the logic of the latest actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople has led to it. Several days ago it was decided at the session of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that it restored in holy orders the anathematized leader of the Ukrainian schism Filaret (Denisenko) and the leader of another schismatic group. The decision was taken “to revoke” the act of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1686 on including the Metropolis of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate and on establishing a stravropegia of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Ukraine. All these decisions are unlawful and canonically void from the point of view of the Russian Orthodox Church which does not accept them and will not adhere to them. The schism remains a schism. Its leaders remain the leaders of schism, and the Church which recognizes schismatics and enters into communion with them excludes herself from the canonical space of the Orthodox Church. It is the main reason for which we have to break communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople which has completely identified itself with the schism. I would like to tell you that it is not the first case of this kind in the history of the Orthodox Church. Once the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople fell into heresy which was condemned at the 3 rd Ecumenical Council and the Patriarch was deposed. A thousand years later the Patriarch of Constantinople signed a unia with Rome. This action was condemned by the heads of other Local Orthodox Churches. The Russian Orthodox Church also condemned it. As patriarch-uniat was elected and there was no canonical patriarch in Constantinople at that time, the Russian Orthodox Church independently elected her metropolitan and since then has begun to live as an autocephalous Church. |
|
|
