| St Gregory, at the request of the Athonite monks, replied with verbal admonitions at first. But seeing the futility of such efforts, he put his theological arguments in writing. Thus appeared the “Triads in Defense of the Holy Hesychasts” (1338). Towards the year 1340 the Athonite ascetics, with the assistance of the saint, compiled a general response to the attacks of Barlaam, the so-called “Hagiorite Tome.” At the Constantinople Council of 1341 in the church of Hagia Sophia St Gregory Palamas debated with Barlaam, focusing upon the nature of the light of Mount Tabor. On May 27, 1341 the Council accepted the position of St Gregory Palamas, that God, unapproachable in His Essence, reveals Himself through His energies, which are directed towards the world and are able to be perceived, like the light of Tabor, but which are neither material nor created. The teachings of Barlaam were condemned as heresy, and he himself was anathemized and fled to Calabria. But the dispute between the Palamites and the Barlaamites was far from over. To these latter belonged Barlaam’s disciple, the Bulgarian monk Akyndinos, and also Patriarch John XIV Kalekos (1341-1347); the emperor Andronicus III Paleologos (1328-1341) was also inclined toward their opinion. Akyndinos, whose name means “one who inflicts no harm,” actually caused great harm by his heretical teaching. Akyndinos wrote a series of tracts in which he declared St Gregory and the Athonite monks guilty of causing church disorders. The saint, in turn, wrote a detailed refutation of Akyndinos’ errors. The patriarch supported Akyndinos and called St Gregory the cause of all disorders and disturbances in the Church (1344) and had him locked up in prison for four years. In 1347, when John the XIV was replaced on the patriarchal throne by Isidore (1347-1349), St Gregory Palamas was set free and was made Archbishop of Thessalonica. In 1351 the Council of Blachernae solemnly upheld the Orthodoxy of his teachings. But the people of Thessalonica did not immediately accept St Gregory, and he was compelled to live in various places. On one of his travels to Constantinople the Byzantine ship fell into the hands of the Turks. Even in captivity, St Gregory preached to Christian prisoners and even to his Moslem captors. The Hagarenes were astonished by the wisdom of his words. Some of the Moslems were unable to endure this, so they beat him and would have killed him if they had not expected to obtain a large ransom for him. A year later, St Gregory was ransomed and returned to Thessalonica. |
| Finally, it is also necessary to stress that the process by which the Church will eventually purify itself of heretical notions and teachings, such as are promoted within syncretistic ecumenism, is a primarily local phenomenon. As matters stand in contemporary Orthodoxy, one Local Church at a time - clergy and laymen - must examine and reject the cacodoxies preached and promoted within syncretistic ecumenist circles before one can expect that the Orthodox Catholic Church of Christ will finally issue a definitive ruling in a universal council. This is why this decision by the Church of Georgia is a milestone and has held great promise for the Church. This process of confronting the ecumenist provocations and formulating the Orthodox faith in the One, Indivisible and Catholic Church, over and against the innovative, syncretistic ecumenistic ecclesiology, was re-started in earnest with this 1998 ruling of the Georgian Church (even if largely unknown to most Orthodox) and has continued as of late, pre and post-Crete, in both the Georgian and Bulgarian Orthodox Synods, with the latter rejecting the " Council " of Crete in particular because of its ecumenist ecclesiological posture. Given this historic 1998 decision of the Church of Georgia, perhaps the clearest and most wide-ranging synodical decision ever issued against syncretistic ecumenism, we can expect that the Holy Synod of the Church of Georgia will soon follow suit and reject the " Council " of Crete. May this decision by the Church of Georgia finally receive the proper attention it deserves by the hierarchy and faithful of all the Local Orthodox Churches, inspiring them to follow suite and declare with clarity the Orthodox faith in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, over and against the ecclesiology of syncretistic ecumenism unfortunately acquitted and given life by the " Council " in Crete . - Protopresbyter Peter Heers, Author of The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II: An Orthodox Examination of Rome’s Ecumenical Theology Regarding Baptism and the Church |
| Usually, “universe” did not refer to the whole world as such, but only to those of its parts where there was civilization. The rulers of big kingdoms were called the “kings of the earth,” as for example, King Cyrus of Persia is called in the Bible (Ezra 1:2). So, when the Greaco-Roman civilization was united under the Roman emperors, the Roman Empire began to be called the “world.” It is precisely in this sense that St. Luke used this word speaking about the Nativity of Christ in his Gospel:”In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered” (Lk.2:1). In fact the term “oikoumene” implied not so much a populated space as a cultivated space of ancient civilization. Other cultures had their own “worlds,” and such understanding of the term had lasted for many centuries. For example, sending a copy of the Kormchaia Kniga (the Pilot Book) to Metropolitan Cyril II of All Russia in 1262, Bulgarian ruler Jacob Svetoslav wrote: “Let the Russian world be enlightened by your word.” When in 325, St. Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles, summoned bishops from all over his Empire to Nicaea to discuss general ecclesiastical problems, that gathering got the name of an “Ecumenical Council.” Thus, an institute of all-imperial level came into being, which at the call of the emperors on especially important occasions brought together bishops from all over the vast Roman state to consider such problems under the chairmanship of the most authoritative bishops, who with the time began to be called “heads of the fathers” – Patriarchs. Most frequently the epithet “of the whole world” in the sense of “empire-wide,” “state-wide” was used by Justinian the Great (527-565) in legal texts. The words “world,” “world-wide” referred to the territory of the Empire as a whole are often to be found in his legislative acts. Thus, the Emperor’s novella 109 of 541 offers a detailed explanation of the supreme church institutes – the Ecumenical Councils and Patriarchates in the following way: “Just as the fathers did, we call ‘heretics’ those who are adhering to different heresies… as in fact are all who are not members of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, in which all the most holy Patriarchs of the whole World – of Western Rome, of this royal city, of Alexandria, of Antioch and of Jerusalem – t ogether with all the most reverend bishops subordinate to them, unanimously proclaim the apostolic faith and holy tradition.” So, according to the imperial legislation, the Orthodox faith was proclaimed together by five “Patriarchs of All the World” in unity with the bishops subordinate to them; and it was precisely to witness this unanimity that the emperors used to call together Ecumenical Councils. |
| 8. At the height of this very dangerous and unjustified crisis which has arisen within the bosom of Orthodoxy as a result of the Ukrainian question there has appeared also a new dogma that the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the head of the Universal Orthodox Church. By reinterpreting the 34th canon of the Holy Apostles, those close to the Ecumenical Throne claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch should be considered the first and head of all the other Primates. That is, all the Patriarchs, Primates and bishops should recognize the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the Universal Orthodox Church. However, this new theory cannot sustain criticism either from the historical or canonical or dogmatic or ecclesiological perspective because the Universal Orthodox Church has no other Head than our Lord Jesus Christ. The natural Prince and immortal Head of the Church is her Author, Saviour and Redeemer Christ. 9. There can be no doubt nor can any objections be advanced that in Ukraine the principle of conciliarity, which is foundational in the administration of the Orthodox Church, has conceded to the principle of the unauthorized and despotic authority of one person, that is, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who by the irony of historical events four years ago called together, headed and coordinated the work of the Holy and Great Council on Crete (18th to 25th June 2016). And this Council in its epistle proclaimed that “the Orthodox Church expresses her unity and catholicity by conciliar means. Conciliarity permeates her organization and is the means by which decisions are taken and the path determined.” 10. Finally, we note that “on the basis of historical truth and canonical tradition, in order to avoid a definitive schism, the Greek-speaking Churches must support the historical rights of the Russian Church which are predicated on the sacred canons and should neither openly nor in silence support the uncanonical interference of Constantinople into another Churches’ jurisdiction. If by reason of love for their people and patriotism they act otherwise in supporting the Greek Patriarch, they then fall into the heresy of ethnophiletism, which was condemned by Constantinople herself in 1872.” |
| Until recently, the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized only the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the omophorion of Metropolitan Onuphry, and now, for his own personal reasons, he is giving autocephaly to the schismatics of Ukraine and disdaining the canonical Orthodox Archdiocese of Ukraine, which is the only one recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church and the other Local Orthodox Churches. Schismatics, as we know, are not the Church, and communion with them is forbidden by the Divine and sacred canons (of the apostles and those adopted by the Ecumenical Councils). Why then this persistence of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in recognizing schismatics as an autocephalous Church and provoking schisms and divisions in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ? Have we really not had enough already with the agitations, storms, and unrest that were caused and are still being caused by the resolutions of the so-called “Holy and Great Council” on Crete (in June 2016) and its designation of “Churches” for heterodox confessions and communities? Has not this so-called “Holy and Great Council” been surpassed by the recent decision of the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople that allows second marriages for priests under certain conditions? Does not the final text of “ The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments ” put forth by the Council literally state in the fourth paragraph of the obstacles to marriage: “Priesthood in itself does not constitute an impediment to marriage, but in accordance with the prevailing canonical tradition (Canon 3 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council), after ordination entrance into marriage is forbidden” to clerics? 2 We appeal, Mr. Stefanopoulos, with a fervent request and heartfelt plea from the edges of our Greek Motherland, the Metropolis of Kythira and Antikythera, to the First Patriarch of our Orthodox Church that he would “take a step back” in order to avoid new schisms and divisions in the all-holy Body of Christ, in our holy Orthodox Church. |
| The section on War and Peace is all right as far as it goes, but makes no mention of conscientious objection to participation in war. Finally, the statements on the diaspora and autonomy seem to me to ignore the changes in political society between the world of the Mediterranean in late antiquity and the world in which we live today. The ideal of one bishop leading the Eucharistic community in a city reflected the world of the early Christian centuries. The world today is very different, but the statements simply see the diaspora as a passing phase, leading to a worldwide network of autonomous/autocephalous ‘local’ churches. That, on the one hand, ignores the way in which the experience of diaspora enabled many to realize the Pauline sense of Christians as essentially aliens in this world, ‘every foreign country is theirs and every country foreign’, as the epistle to Diognetos put it, and, on the other hands, ignores the way in which many people, not least Christians, move from country to country, as well as the way in which ‘cities’ nowadays are vast amalgams of communities, so that the Christian community in a modern city is really, at best, an imagined community, made up of real communities without necessarily any territorial base. We need an ecclesiology to measure up to that, not an attempt to restore an ancient ecclesiology that no longer corresponds to the social reality in which we live. Andrew Louth is Emeritus Professor of Patristic and Byzantine Studies at Durham University. Code for blog Since you are here… …we do have a small request. More and more people visit Orthodoxy and the World website. However, resources for editorial are scarce. In comparison to some mass media, we do not make paid subscription. It is our deepest belief that preaching Christ for money is wrong. Having said that, Pravmir provides daily articles from an autonomous news service, weekly wall newspaper for churches, lectorium, photos, videos, hosting and servers. Editors and translators work together towards one goal: to make our four websites possible - Pravmir.ru, Neinvalid.ru, Matrony.ru and Pravmir.com. Therefore our request for help is understandable. For example, 5 euros a month is it a lot or little? A cup of coffee? It is not that much for a family budget, but it is a significant amount for Pravmir. If everyone reading Pravmir could donate 5 euros a month, they would contribute greatly to our ability to spread the word of Christ, Orthodoxy, life " s purpose, family and society. Related articles Going into the council, the most pressing issue for American Orthodox Christians was the question of… Various comments have been published related to the stance I took regarding the text of the… MESSAGE OF THE HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH To the Orthodox people and to… Today " s Articles Most viewed articles Functionality is temporarily unavailable. Most popular authors Functionality is temporarily unavailable. © 2008-2024 Pravmir.com |
| The appeal to ecumenical conciliarity (sobornost, in Russian) and the emperor are frequently taken as normative for the Eastern Church’s self-expression. Certainly the Seven Ecumenical Councils (q.v.) have unique authority in the East, and the emperor was looked upon as blessed by God to enforce secular, if not religious, justice. The problem with the councils and the emperor, briefly put, is that terrible difficulties in the conciliar period began immediately with Constantine the Great (q.v.). Councils were convened that attributed “ecumenical authority” to themselves, but which were subsequently judiciously overturned. Similarly, the emperor soon showed himself capable of being as much a hindrance to the faith as a help. Heretical laws were passed and enforced. The state interfered in the Church and itself created new martyrs (q.v.)-most recently with Soviet sovereignty. One of the worst conciliar debacles occurred with the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439) wherein all the sitting hierarchs except Mark of Ephesus (q.v.) capitulated to Rome; and on returning to their dioceses they met an angry reception-and most swiftly recanted in order to hold their sees. Nonetheless, the conciliar model retains most of its integrity and remains an ideal in Orthodoxy. Without a Christian emperor and a clear enunciation of which and how clergy and laity interact in council, the inspiration for convening such councils is at times lacking. The appeal to Holy Tradition (q.v.) (including Scripture and/or the Councils [qq.v.]) is recognized as of ultimate authority, since it is tantamount to an appeal to the entire experience of the Church. Holy Tradition is seen as consisting of many elements, including Scripture, liturgy, Canon Law, patristics (qq.v.), etc. The primary hurdle in appealing to Holy Tradition as an authority lies in the selection of appropriate sources, applicable to a given situation. Similarly, precedent is difficult to establish quickly, since the selection of sources itself is a matter of interpretation, and the question raised might not have been asked previously (e.g., in the question of women’s ordination [q.v.] to the priesthood). Everyone agrees that Holy Tradition is authoritative, but which beliefs and practices truly manifest Holy Tradition is open to a variety of interpretation. |
| Albazin was built up. At two churches in the city, the Ascension of the Lord and Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Albazin priests offered the Bloodless Sacrifice. Not far from the city (along the Amur) another monastery was built, the Spassky. The fertile soil produced bread for Eastern Siberia. The local populace adapted itself to Russian Orthodox culture, peacefully entering into the multi-national Russian state, and found Russian protection from the plundering raids of Chinese feudal war-lords. At Moscow they did not forget the needs of the far-away Amur frontier. They strengthened military defenses and improved regional government. In 1682 the Albazin Military-Provincial Government was formed. They concerned themselves about the spiritual nourishment of the Amur region peoples. A local Council of the Russian Church in 1681 adopted a resolution to send “archimandrites, igumens, or priests, both learned and good, to enlighten unbelievers with the law of Christ.” The Daurian and Tungusian peoples as a whole accepted Holy Baptism. Of great significance was the conversion of the Daurian prince Hantimur (renamed Peter) and his eldest son Katana (renamed Paul) to Orthodoxy. The servants of the Chinese emperor planned for a new attack. After several unsuccessful forays, on July 10, 1685, they marched against Albazin with an army of 15,000 and encircled the fortress. In it were 450 Russian soldiers and three cannon. The first assault was repulsed. The Chinese then from all sides piled up firewood and kindling against the wooden walls of the fortress and set it on fire. Further resistance proved impossible. With its military standards and holy things, among which was the wonderworking Albazin Icon, the soldiers abandoned the fortress. The Mother of God did not withhold Her intercession from Her chosen city. Scouts soon reported that the Chinese suddenly began to withdraw from Albazin, ignoring the Chinese emperor’s command to destroy the crops in the Russian fields. The miraculous intervention of the Heavenly Protectress not only drove the enemy from Russian territories, but also preserved the grain which sustained the city for the winter months. On August 20, 1685 Russians were in Albazin again. |
| They prayed to the Lord God to strengthen him and give him many blessings in his old age. Furthermore, His Beatitude gave the Synod Fathers a detailed presentation on the visit he made to this Archdiocese during which he met the faithful in the Kingdom of Bahrain and in the United Arab Emirates. In this visit, His Beatitude had the opportunity to see their pastoral needs and was able to meet with the leaders of their parishes. The faithful have shown all readiness to stimulate and strengthen the Antiochian Orthodox presence in these countries. In this context, the Synod Fathers decided to review the geographical composition of the Archdiocese which was reconstituted as follows: 1. The Archdiocese of Baghdad, Kuwait and dependencies, covering Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman; 2. The Patriarchal Vicariate of the Kingdom of Bahrain; 3. The Patriarchal Vicariate of the Emirate of Qatar; 4. The Patriarchal Vicariate of the United Arab Emirates. Similarly, the Synod Fathers listened to a detailed presentation given by His Beatitude about his recent irenic visit to the Russian Orthodox Church, and the visit’s main ecclesiastical and civil aspects. The members of the Holy Synod also discussed the situation in the Archdiocese of New York and All North America whose metropolitan seat has been vacant, since the repose of His Eminence Metropolitan Philip (Saliba) of Thrice Blessed Memory. Subsequently, they elected in an extraordinary session His Eminence Joseph (Zehlawi) as Metropolitan of New York and all North America. The fathers sent their best greetings to all their faithful in this Archdiocese, congratulating them for the election of their new Archpastor. They also conveyed their best wishes to the new Metropolitan, praying to the Lord God to bless His service at the Divine Altar of the Lord. The Synod members discussed the importance of the upcoming Great Pan-orthodox Council which is scheduled to take place in 2016. They emphasized the importance of the testimony of Orthodox unity in the world today, and the need to get over all obstacles that prevent the course of the council’s success. |
| Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement has, despite some of the difficulties opposing it– for which work is ongoing to create joint solutions according to the logic of dialogue and acceptance of others, insofar as there is no escaping working with other Christians to ready the environment for the hoped-for unity. As for the principles related to Christian witness nowadays, such as freedom, justice, brotherhood, equality and ending racial discrimination, confirmation of their Orthodox understanding has been reiterated and the agreement has been implemented in the world without entering into direct conflicts with the regimes that violate these teachings. In the matter of fasting, the preparatory work has explained its spiritual and ascetic importance and has stressed the necessity of keeping to its rules, lightening them when the need demands, relying on the principle of economy, in which the Orthodox Church is distinguished. The very same principle of economy was applied in the matter of impediments to marriage, especially mixed marriages. As for the issue of the calendar, the Orthodox agreed not to argue over it and affirmed that for them, celebrating Easter together remains more important than scientific precision, without shutting the door to future efforts that would permit all Christians to celebrate Easter together. In the matter of autonomy, the Orthodox agreed that this is an issue that remains tied to the local churches themselves and they defined the conditions and manner of announcing it. They likewise reached an agreement on the concept of autocephaly without agreeing on how to sign the tomos of autocephaly and the content of this tomos. The preparatory work was likewise unable to reach an agreement on the issue of the Holy Diptychs. Finally, with regard to the issue of the Orthodox diaspora, an agreement was made for a provisional solution requiring the establishment of episcopal assemblies in the countries of the diaspora that come together with the goal of cooperation and coordination under the leadership of the first among the bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in anticipation of the Great Council endeavoring to find a final solution for this issue that is not contrary to Orthodox ecclesiology, which states the necessity of there being one bishop per city. |
|
|
