| THE URUK KING LIST (obverse) 21 years K(anda)lanu Sinshumlishir and Sinsharishkun 21 years Nabopolassar 43 (ye)ars Nebuchadnezzar 2(ye)ars AwelMarduk ‘3’ (years) 8 months Neriglissar (...) 3 months LabashiMarduk ‘17[?]’ (years) Nabonidus As is seen, the royal names and the preserved figures for the NeoBabylonian period agree with those of Berossus and the Royal Canon: Nabopolassar is given 21 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, and AwelMarduk (Evilmerodach) 2 years. The only deviation is the length of LabashiMarduk’s reign, which is given as 3 months against Berossus’ 9 months. The smaller figure is without doubt correct, as is proved by the economic documents unearthed. 184 In contrast to the Royal Canon, which always gives whole years only, the Uruk King List is more specific in also giving months for the reigns of Neriglissar and LabashiMarduk. The damaged figures for Neriglissar and Nabonidus may be restored (reconstructed) as “3 years, 8 months,” and “17 years,” respectively. The economic texts also indicate Neriglissar’s reign to have been three years and eight months (August 560April 556 B.C.E.). 185 Thus, once again, we find the figures of Berossus and the Royal Canon confirmed by this ancient document, the Uruk King List. Admittedly, this king list was composed (from older documents) more than 300 years after the end of the NeoBabylonian era. On this basis it might be argued that scribal errors may have crept into it. So it is important to ask: Are there then no historical records preserved from the NeoBabylonian era itself which establish its chronology? Yes, there are, as is immediately evident. c) Royal inscriptions Royal inscriptions of different kinds (building inscriptions, votive inscriptions, annals, etc.) from the Assyrian and Babylonian eras themselves have been found in great numbers. In 1912 a German translation of the thenknown NeoBabylonian inscriptions was published by Stephen Langdon, but since then many new ones from the period in question have been unearthed. 186 A new translation of all the NeoBabylonian royal inscriptions is therefore being prepared. 187 |
| Besides doctrinal definitions, the Ecumenical Councils drew up Canons, dealing with Church organization and discipline; other Canons were made by Local Councils and by individual bishops. Theodore Balsamon, Zonaras, and other Byzantine writers compiled collections of Canons, with explanations and commentaries. The standard modern Greek commentary, the Pedalion (‘Rudder’), published in 1800, is the work of that indefatigable saint, Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain. The Canon Law of the Orthodox Church has been very little studied in the west, and as a result western writers sometimes fall into the mistake of regarding Orthodoxy as an organization with virtually no outward regulations. On the contrary, the life of Orthodoxy has many rules, often of great strictness and rigour. It must be confessed, however, that at the present day many of the Canons are difficult or impossible to apply, and have fallen widely into disuse. When and if a new General Council of the Church is assembled, one of its chief tasks may well be the revision and clarification of Canon Law. The doctrinal definitions of the Councils possess an absolute and unalterable validity which Canons as such cannot claim; for doctrinal definitions deal with eternal truths, Canons with the earthly life of the Church, where conditions are constantly changing and individual situations are infinitely various. Yet between the Canons and the dogmas of the Church there exists an essential connexion: Canon Law is simply the attempt to apply dogma to practical situations in the daily life of each Christian. Thus in a relative sense the Canons form a part of Holy Tradition. 7. Icons The Tradition of the Church is expressed not only through words, not only through the actions and gestures used in worship, but also through art – through the line and colour of the Holy Icons. An icon is not simply a religious picture designed to arouse appropriate emotions in the beholder; it is one of the ways whereby God is revealed to man. Through icons the Orthodox Christian receives a vision of the spiritual world. Because the icon is a part of Tradition, the icon painter is not free to adapt or innovate as he pleases; for his work must reflect, not his own aesthetic sentiments, but the mind of the Church. Artistic inspiration is not excluded, but it is exercised within certain prescribed rules. It is important that an icon painter should be a good artist, but it is even more important that he should be a sincere Christian, living within the spirit of Tradition, preparing himself for his work by means of Confession and Holy Communion. |
| See where violation of the Canons regarding the time for celebrating Pascha leads. From the aforementioned canonical prescriptions of the Orthodox Church it is clear that we must uphold them reverently, without any alteration. For this reason, the Twenty-rst Canon of the Synod in Gangra says: We wish that all things which have been handed down by the Divine Scriptures and the Apostolic Traditions be observed in the Church. And the Second Canon of the Sixth Œcumenical Synod: That no one be allowed to falsify or set aside the aforementioned Canons [of the Apostles, of the Œcumenical and Local Synods, and of the Holy Fathers], or to accept any Canons other than those herein specied, which have been composed under a spurious inscription by certain persons who have attempted to traffic in the truth. Such a steadfast and undeviating upholding of the Canons is demanded by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod, the First Canon of which states: We gladly embrace the Divine Canons and hold fast all the precepts of the same, complete and without change, whether they have been set forth by those clarions of the Spirit, the all-laudable Apostles, or by the Six Œcumenical Synods, or by Synods locally assembled for promulgating such decrees, or by our Holy Fathers; for all these, being illumined by the same Spirit, ordained such things as were expedient; and those whom they placed under anathema, we likewise anathematize; those whom they deposed, we also depose; those whom they excommunicated, we also excommunicate... From all of the aforementioned canonical prescriptions it is evident to what a great sin the Roman Catholics fell when they overturned the Sacred Canons, which forbid us to celebrate Pascha along with the Jews. This is the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which God does not forgive, either in the present life or in the life to come. For, the same Holy Spirit, God, speaks through the Sacred Canons, because the canonical, as well as the dogmatic, prescriptions of the Œcumenical Synods were composed in accordance with the words of Divine Scripture: “It seemed pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us.” |
| The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, according to the divine and holy canons (the 3 rd canon of the Second Ecumenical Council and the 28 th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council), enjoys the “primacy of honour” among the Patriarchal Thrones of the East. After the Great Schism of 1054, the Ecumenical Patriarchate became the first Throne in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of Christ and enjoys the canonical right to preside in honour among the Local autocephalous Orthodox Churches. In a more special sense, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the “first among equals” (primus inter pares) has the right to preside at an Ecumenical Council and, correspondingly, is obliged to coordinate the Orthodox Churches. He is also empowered to grant autocephaly or autonomy to a particular ecclesiastical territory in certain, clear and strict conditions established by Church Tradition and in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology and canonical order. And these conditions are identical to those upon agreement was reached by representatives of all the Local Orthodox Churches at the sessions of the inter-Orthodox preparatory commission in 1993 and 2009 which laid the groundwork for the Holy and Great Council of Crete in 2016. Unfortunately, the text of this joint decision was never presented to the Holy and Crete Council in Kolimvary in Crete. Some people claim that this is because the Russian Church did not agree with it. But the Holy Synod of the Russian Church officially stated on 17 th October 2019 that “in reality the topic of autocephaly was removed from the agenda of the Council … at the insistence of Patriarch Bartholomew.” Thus, the very first thing that a Church which wishes to be granted autocephaly should do is to express on behalf of its pleroma which bears the names of Christ (the clergy and the people) the desire to be granted autocephaly by petitioning the Ecumenical Patriarchate and hoping the petition will be examined. In particular, concerning the issue of Ukraine which we are discussing at present, we should note the following. The Ecumenical Patriarch could receive for study a petition for autocephaly only from a single ecclesiastical structure in the country, and even then, only if it fits the canonical requirements. As we all know, the sole canonical ecclesiastical structure in Ukraine is that headed by metropolitan Onuphrius and recognized by all the Orthodox Churches (and until recently by the Ecumenical Patriarchate), which is the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, consisting of ninety bishops, 12 500 parishes, 250 monasteries, 5 000 monks and nuns and tens of millions of the faithful who make up the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox people of Ukraine. |
| Although public ceremonies of repentance were already common in the time of St. Basil the Great, private repentance, appropriate for particular sins, was also in use (St. Basil. Canon 34). The successor of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Nectarius of Constantinople, was the first major hierarch known to formally abolish the ecclesiastical office of public repentance in Constantinople in the late 4th century. By the 9th century, after the triumph of the monks over the iconoclasts, the practice of private monastic confession became standard. Nevertheless, the correspondence of Archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos demonstrates that the arranging of public penance was occasionally known even in 13th-century Byzantium. Current Orthodox practice is that a Christian repents secretly of personal sins, while a more public acknowledgment of repentance may be appropriate in case of widely known offenses. It is Christ himself who receives the believer’s repentance. The priest, acting as confessor, is only a witness, a spiritual therapist who gives advice, or who may prescribe a penitential remedy (epitimion). The church annually assigns the time of Great Lent as an occasion for repentance. During this forty-day period Christians are called to turn from self-love towards deeper love of God and one’s neighbor. Various ascetic and pious deeds – fasting, almsgiving, extended prayer with tears – may go along with the Orthodox practice of repentance. According to the desert fathers, St. Gregory Palamas, and other church teachers, repentance signifies the beginning of the process of rebirth. Through this process a person becomes a participant in divine nature ( 2Pet. 1.4 ). Repentance is not simply a matter of rejecting sin and leading a life of virtue, but rather a transformation that helps the person to discover in the soul’s depths the very likeness of God. SEE ALSO: Asceticism; Canon Law; Confession; Metanie (Metanoia) REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS Antonopoulos Nektarios, Archimandrite (2000) Return. Athens: Akritas Publications. Chrysostomos, Archbishop of Etna (1997) Repentance. Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies. |
| No church bans were imposed on the Russian Church’s bishops, clergy or laity at that time. - To look at more recent examples, the Patriarchate of Kiev leaders have often compared themselves with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, as ‘the schism’ and later the overcoming of the tragic division were talked about for years. - A more lame comparison is difficult to find. The Russian Church Outside Russia was brought about by well-known grave historical circumstances, a civil war and mass emigration. It was formed as a temporary structure, as its statute underscores. Its bishops, pastors and lay people have always considered themselves to be part of one Russian Church, self-governed until the godless power is abolished in the native land. None of the ROCOR hierarchs was defrocked or anathemized. The Russian Church Outside Russia was never completely isolated from Universal Orthodoxy. Therefore, the restoration of unity was a matter of time, though became possible only after the situation was radically changed in Russia, Ukraine and other countries under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church. - Could you comment on the affirmation that the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the Russian Orthodox Church is not capable of ‘being an authoritative and impartial interpreter of canons and statutes of the Church’? - Apparently, you mean the so-called ‘recognition of the sacraments’ sought by the schismatics and the First Canon of St. Basil the Great cited by the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod in its appeal to the schismatics. But first of all, the Canon of Basil the Great speaks of the rite of accepting back in the Church for those who have fallen away from it, not about the ‘recognition’ of sacraments administered by those who continue to stay away from the Church. According to the schismatic leaders’ statements, they are confident of their righteousness and need no repentance. Nevertheless, they seem to be distressed by the fact of non-recognition of their sacraments! A strange attitude, isn’t it? |
| 25 An ancient epitome of this Canon reads: “A voluntary homicide may at the last attain perfection.” Constantine Harmenopulus the Scholiast in the Epitom. Canonum., Sect. V, tit. 3, tells the following story: “In the time of the Patriarch Luke, a certain bishop gave absolution in writing to a soldier who had committed voluntary homicide, after a very short time of penance; and afterwards when he was accused before the synod of having done so, he defended himself by citing the Canon which gives bishops the power of remitting or increasing the length of their penance to penitents. But he was told in answer that this was granted indeed to pontiffs but not that they should use it without examination, and with too great lenity. Wherefore the synod subjected the soldier to the Canonical penance and the bishop it mulcted for a certain time, bidding him cease from the exercise of his ministry.” Comment by the Canonist van Espen. 26 Of voluntary and involuntary homicides St. Basil treats at length in his Canonical Epistle ad Amphilochium, can. VIII, LVI and LVII, and fixes the time of penance at twenty years for voluntary and ten years for involuntary homicides. It is evident that the penance given for this crime varied in different churches, although it is clear from the great length of the penance, how enormous the crime was considered, no light or short penance being sufficient. Comment of the Canonist van Espen. 28 Gr. thymikon, one of the three powers of the soul according to the tripartite division of the human soul generally adopted by the Greek Fathers. Thymikon can be described as the force of the soul that provokes vehement feelings, often in the form of anger. 29 The Local Synod of Constantinople was convened by Patriarch Anthimos VI of Constantinople in 1872 in order to address the unilateral establishment of a separate bishopric (exarchate) by the Bulgarian community of Constantinople. It was the first time that a diocese for a specific ethnic group was created, in violation of the principles of the territorial principle of Orthodox ecclesiology – and on the territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The 1872 Synod condemned the newly created Bulgarian Exarchate, which remained in a schism that lasted until 1945. The Statement of the Synod was adopted by the Synods of the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem (in a slightly modified form) and Greece. The Russian Orthodox Church did not recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate, yet it did not ratify the Synod’s Statement either. The Serbian and Romanian Orthodox Churches failed to express themselves on the matter. |
| Photo: eadiocese.org On Tuesday, August 9, 2022, Holy Cross Monastery in Wayne, WV celebrated the feast day of its patron saint, the Holy Great-Martyr and Healer Panteleimon. His Grace Bishop Nicholas of Manhattan celebrated Divine Liturgy, inspiring the faithful not only with his reverence at the altar, but also with his unflagging dedication, since he did not arrive at the monastery until close to midnight the evening before due to flight cancellations and delays. At the Little Entrance, Hieromonk Basil (Blevins) was awarded the right to wear the nabedrennik for his service to the Church. The brethren rejoiced also at the great number of communicants, including many of the local and regional clergy and faithful, in addition to those who traveled great distances to celebrate the feast. Following Holy Communion, Bishop Nicholas gave a heartfelt sermon on the necessity and value of turning wholeheartedly to St Panteleimon in prayer. He reminded everyone how the saints are always praying for us, even when we ourselves forget to pray. He also called to mind the words of St Panteleimon’s troparion (O holy Passion-bearer and Healer Panteleimon, intercede with the merciful God, that He grant unto our souls forgiveness of offenses.) and how we can use them as a guide for how to pray. First, we begin by calling on the name of God and His saints, for their names are powerful. Then we recall God’s limitless mercy, sincerely offering our petitions for whatever is on our heart and especially for the forgiveness of our offenses. After Divine Liturgy, Bishop Nicholas led the clergy and faithful in a festal moleben to St Panteleimon, wherein all those were commemorated who wrote to ask the prayers of the great martyr for themselves and their loved ones. They will continue to be commemorated at special molebens for eight days following the feast, each day having its own appointed canon being read to the saint. That evening, a panihida was served at the monastic cemetery for Schemamonk John (Dezorzi), who reposed on St. Panteleimon’s Day in 2015. Afterward, Bishop Nicholas held a synaxis with the brethren, sharing reminiscences of the recently reposed Metropolitan Hilarion of blessed memory. The next morning, the fathers bade His Grace farewell to the peal of bells. May the Lord direct the steps of our beloved Bishop Nicholas, through the prayers of St. Panteleimon! |
| “The prophetic words of the saint are being fulfilled in our day, especially regarding the situation in the Ukrainian Church. With great spiritual trepidation we are forced to cite the Decree Concerning the Excommunication of monk Philaret (Denisenko), former Metropolitan of Kiev, who has flung many souls into schism: " The Holy Hierarchical Council examined the case of the anti-Church activity of monk Philaret (Denisenko), who has been deprived of all degrees of the priesthood by the court order of the Hierarchical Council of June 11, 1992, and was warned by the Hierarchical Council of 1994 that " in the case of continued... misconduct , he will be excommunicated from the Church through anathematization. " The Holy Hierarchical Council is forced now with sorrow to state that monk Philaret did not heed the call to repentance addressed to him in the name of the Mother Church and in the period between councils continued his schismatic activity, which he stretched out beyond the bounds of the Russian Orthodox Church, contributing to the deepening of the schism in our brother-Church of Bulgaria and receiving into his communion schismatics from other Local Orthodox Churches. Criminally disregarding the well-founded ban pronounced by the lawful Church authority—that is, his defrocking—he continued to perform sacrilegious " divine services, " including blasphemous ordinations; not having any priestly rank, monk Philaret, to the seduction of many, dared to call himself " Patriarch of Kiev and All Rus " -Ukraine, " While the ancient Kiev See is lawfully occupied by the canonical Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is in canonical communion with the Russian Orthodox Church, and through her with the whole Ecumenical ( vselenskoy—of the whole inhabited earth ) Orthodox Church—continuing to cripple Orthodoxy in the Ukraine by his criminal acts. In view of the above, based on the 28th Apostolic Canon, which says: " If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, having been justly deposed upon open accusations, shall dare to meddle with any of the divine offices which had been entrusted to him, let him be altogether cut off from the Church, " and likewise the 14th Canon of the Council of Sardis, the 4th of Antioch, the 88th of St. Basil the Great—the Holy Hierarchical Council unanimously determines: to excommunicate monk Philaret (Mikhail Antonovich Denisenko) from the Church of Christ. Let him be anathema before all the people. " ( Anathema. History and the 20th Century. 1998. Pp. 396-397.) |
| Higher authority needed. In the Russian Church, as in the Orthodox East, the wider the area of the proposed veneration, the higher the ecclesiastical authority needed to confirm it. When, in 1715, the priest and parishioners of the Church of the Resurrection in Totma (Vologda Province) turned to the archbishop of Veliky Ustiug with the request that, in view of the many miracles which had occurred at the grave of Maximus, a priest and “fool for Christ” of the town, who had reposed in 1650, the archbishop blessed the construction of a church dedicated to St. Paraskeva over his grave, “as was customary for the saints of God, and also to construct over his relics a sarcophagus and a holy icon to cover it.” In reply to this request, the archbishop decreed “that a monument be constructed in that church and that molebens be chanted to St. Maximus in a holy manner, as for the other favorites of God.” Thus, one may conclude that the archbishop blessed the local veneration on his own personal authority. As examples of how a synodal execution of matters pertaining to the righteous departed came about, we shall cite several extracts from acts related to the glorification of saints “of all Russia.” Regarding the institution of the general ecclesiastical celebration of the memory of St. Joseph of Volotsk, the following statement is found in one of the anthologies of Volokolamsk: “By order of the right-believing and Christ-loving Sovereign Autocrat, Tsar, and Great Prince Feodor Ivanovich of All Russia, and with the blessing of his father, His Holiness Job, first Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the troparion, kontakion, stichera and canon, and the whole service for the Liturgy to our venerable father and Abbot Joseph of Volotsk were corrected under Abbot Joasaph on June 1, 7099 (i.e., 1591). And the Sovereign Autocrat, Tsar, and Great Prince Feodor Ivanovich of All Russia, and His Holiness Job, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, and the whole council, in general assembly witnessed the singing of the troparion, the kontakion, the stichera, the canon, and the service at Liturgy to the venerable Joseph. |
|
|
