| Metropolitan Tikhon addresses clergy, faithful of the Diocese of the Midwest admin 15 April 2013 April 14, 2013 In a pastoral letter dated April 14, 2013, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon addressed the clergy and faithful of the Diocese of the Midwest with regard to recent events concerning His Grace, Bishop Matthias. The complete text as it appears below also is available in PDF format . PASTORAL LETTER April 14, 2013 Sunday of Saint John of the Ladder To the Very Reverend and Reverend Fathers, Reverend Deacons, Venerable Monastics, Esteemed Members of the Diocesan and Parish Councils and Faithful of the Diocese of the Midwest, The past eight months have been difficult for the entire Diocese of the Midwest and have seen the clergy and faithful in all of the parishes deeply affected by the matter of the allegations against His Grace, Bishop Matthias. The resolution of this matter has likewise required significant attention and the Holy Synod recognizes the stress that everyone has been under during this time. Since Archbishop Nathaniel’s letter to the diocese of November 3, 2012, the Holy Synod has been carefully reviewing all aspects of this matter, including the Report of the Response Team that investigated the complaint, the Report of the Institute which offered the week-long evaluation and the discussions held at the Assembly and Diocesan Council of the Diocese of the Midwest. At the Spring Session of the Holy Synod, held on March 11-14, 2013, the members of the Holy Synod met with His Grace, Bishop Matthias, and came to a consensus on this matter. After much prayer and deliberation, the Holy Synod regretfully determined to recommend to their brother, Bishop Matthias, that he retire voluntarily from his position as diocesan bishop for the Diocese of the Midwest. Although His Grace was obedient to all the directives placed upon him by the Holy Synod, it was the Holy Synod’s considered opinion that the healing of the Diocese and of the complainant, as well as Bishop Matthias’ own healing, would not be possible should he be returned to the Diocese as a ruling hierarch. The Holy Synod offered him some time to reflect upon this action and to plan for his transition. |
| 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 healing of the schism between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as a false analogy in the issue of the Ukrainian schismatics By the bishop of Belgorod Sylvester, auxiliary of the Kiev metropolitanate, rector of the Kiev Theological Seminary and Academy In 2018 the Patriarchate of Constantinople accepted within its jurisdiction Philaret (Denisenko) and Macarius (Maletich) and their followers. In this manner there were received into the Church of Constantinople individuals who had received their ordination while in schism. And at the same time no ordinations were repeated, while all the holy ranks accorded them while they were in schism were recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. By 2019 there was already unfolding within the Orthodox world a discussion on the extent to which this decision by the Patriarchate of Constantinople was in accordance with canonical tradition. Within the discussion special attention was paid to the historical precedents of healing ecclesiastical divisions. In particular, Patriarch Bartholomew in his correspondence with His Beatitude Anastasios, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania, pointed towards a number of such precedents. Thus, in his letter of 20 th February 2019 Patriarch Bartholomew mentioned the restoration of canonical communion between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) in 2007. Patriarch Bartholomew noted that here there were no repeated ordinations of the bishops and priests who had been ordained in the period of the rupture in church relations. Patriarch Bartholomew wrote that the Russian Church “forgave all the members of the ROCOR who had hitherto been in schism. How were they received into communion, through rebaptism or through reordination?” Such references to the overcoming of the division between the Moscow Patriarchate and the ROCOR are typical of the Ukrainian schismatics as well. The Appeal of the Holy Synod and the Episcopate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate to the bishops, clergy and laity of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of 14 th December 2007 mentions the restoration of canonical communion with the ROCOR. In this document the restoration of unity between the Moscow Patriarchate and the ROCOR was viewed as a possible model for the overcoming of the ecclesiastical schism in Ukraine. On 16 th July 2008 in reply to this appeal the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate indicated the wrongness of drawing an analogy between the ROCOR and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate (UOC KP). Nonetheless, as we see, in 2019 too Patriarch Bartholomew, in justifying his decisions regarding Philaret (Denisenko), made reference to the example of the ROCOR. |
| Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany Issues an Open Letter to the German Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops Source: ROCOR Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany, First Vice President of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and ruling bishop of the German Diocese, appealed to his brother hierarchs of the German Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in which he objects to the one-sided coverage of events in Ukraine. Vladyka Mark points to the intolerable pressure being exerted upon the traditional Ukrainian Orthodox Church under its canonical leader, His Beatitude Metropolitan Onouphry of Kiev and All Ukraine. The letter also mentions the political pressure being placed on other Local Orthodox Churches. At the same time, the hierarch of the oldest Orthodox diocese in Germany urges open dialog between the members of the Assembly of Bishops in Germany, which has suffered serious harm, as has all of Orthodox Christianity throughout the world, from the unilateral actions of the Constantinople Patriarchate. Vladyka Mark stresses that the Church must not be drawn into the sphere of political conflict and division, which does not serve the matter of peace. Archbishop Mark also mentions the peace-making experience of his own diocese, which made an active contribution towards the overcoming of the old division within the Russian Orthodox Church, which directly contradicts the processes that are in play initiated by the enemies of the Church. Dialog must be held, in his opinion, in the proper way under today’s circumstances, a challenge to the President of the Assembly of Bishops, Metropolitan Augustine, whose signature under the “tomos” is mentioned critically and with sorrow: An open letter to all members of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in Germany Munich, January 30/February 12, 2019 The Feast of the Three Hierarchs: John Chrysostom, Gregory the Theologian and Basil the Great Your Eminences and Excellencies: It is with a saddened heart that I, as archbishop of the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Berlin and Germany (ROCOR), take this opportunity to clarify our diocese’s position on the current developments among the Orthodox. |
| “It Is Not Too Late To Stop” A Sorrowful Reply to Patriarch Bartholomew Concerning His Anti-Canonical Actions in Ukraine Source: DECR In reply to a letter of His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, in which he informed of the “reinstatement” of the Ukrainian schismatics in their “rank,” of the “annulment” of the document which is three hundred years old and indicates the transfer of the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, of the organization in Kiev of a “local council” of the non-canonical groups admitted to communion, and of the intention to grant “autocephaly” in the next few days to the institution established at this gathering, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia sent a message, in which he expressed his deep pain, astonishment and indignation over the anti-canonical actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. HIS HOLINESS BARTHOLOMEW PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE Your Holiness, It was with the feeling of great pain, astonishment and indignation that I read your letter in which you informed me of the recent actions of the Church of Constantinople: of admitting to communion the uncanonical communities in Ukraine; of “revoking” the Letter of Patriarch Dionysius IV of Constantinople which had transferred the Kievan Metropolia to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate; of organizing in Kiev a “local council” of the uncanonical communities admitted to communion by you; and of intending to give in the next few days a status of an autocephalous Orthodox Church to the institution that you had established. The reunification of the schismatics with the Church would have been a great joy both for Orthodox Christians in Ukraine and for the whole Orthodox world had it occurred in compliance with the rules of the canon law, in the spirit of peace and love of Christ. However, the current politicized process of coercive unification is far from the norms and spirit of the holy canons. A great amount of lies has been piled up, and now violence is being inflicted on the true Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is the same Church of millions of the Ukrainian faithful that you recognized as canonical all the years of your service, until very recently. And now you pretend that it does not exist, that there are only some separate dioceses which have returned under your omophorion. |
| The First Sunday of Lent: The Sunday of Orthodoxy Introduction The Sunday of Orthodoxy is the first Sunday of Great Lent. The dominant theme of this Sunday since 843 has been that of the victory of the icons. In that year the iconoclastic controversy, which had raged on and off since 726, was finally laid to rest, and icons and their veneration were restored on the first Sunday in Lent. Ever since, this Sunday has been commemorated as the " Triumph of Orthodoxy. " Historical Background Icon of the The Sunday of Orthodoxy used with permission and provided by: ΕΚΔΟΣΗ και ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ , ΓΑΛΑΚΤΙΩΝΟΣ ΓΚΑΜΙΛΗ ΤΗΛ. 4971 882, ΕΚΤΥΠΟΣΗ Μ. ΤΟΥΜΠΗΣ Α.Ε.,http://www.toubis.gr The Seventh Ecumenical Council dealt predominantly with the controversy regarding icons and their place in Orthodox worship. It was convened in Nicaea in 787 by Empress Irene at the request of Tarasios, Patriarch of Constantinople. The Council was attended by 367 bishops. Almost a century before this, the iconoclastic controversy had once more shaken the foundations of both Church and State in the Byzantine empire. Excessive religious respect and the ascribed miracles to icons by some members of society, approached the point of worship (due only to God) and idolatry. This instigated excesses at the other extreme by which icons were completely taken out of the liturgical life of the Church by the Iconoclasts. The Iconophiles, on the other-hand, believed that icons served to preserve the doctrinal teachings of the Church; they considered icons to be man's dynamic way of expressing the divine through art and beauty. The Council decided on a doctrine by which icons should be venerated but not worshipped. In answering the Empress' invitation to the Council, Pope Hadrian replied with a letter in which he also held the position of extending veneration to icons but not worship, the last befitting only God. The decree of the Council for restoring icons to churches added an important clause which still stands at the foundation of the rationale for using and venerating icons in the Orthodox Church to this very day: " We define that the holy icons, whether in colour, mosaic, or some other material, should be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on the sacred vessels and liturgical vestments, on the walls, furnishings, and in houses and along the roads, namely the icons of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, that of our Lady the Theotokos, those of the venerable angels and those of all saintly people. |
| Even more significant and overtly ecumenical in tone was the encyclical of Ecumenical Patriarch Germanos, issued in 1920, which was addressed “To the Churches of Christ Everywhere” and which announced its theme in the epigraph taken from the First Letter of Peter: “Love one another earnestly from the heart” ( 1Pet. 1.22 ) (Limouris 1994). This encyclical is considered foundational to the ecumenical movement in general, setting forth the very notion of creating a “league” or fellowship of churches. It speaks about the “blessed union” of the churches that awaits the faithful and urges all the different traditions to engage in joint study of the central issues surrounding the concept of reunion. The letter suggests that, as a first step towards union, the fostering of contacts between the churches is a most important thing. When the first such contacts were initiated, two prerequisites were asked to be kept in mind: first, “the removal and abolition of all the mutual mistrust and bitterness”; and secondly, that “love should be rekindled and strengthened among the churches.” Germanos then went on to list some eleven fundamental points as a working proposal and agenda for future collaboration among the churches: a list which indeed became the basis of the programmatic work of the WCC at the time of its creation in 1948. Then, only three Orthodox churches participated: the ecumenical patriarchate itself, the Church of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece; though the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in the USA sent representatives. The spirit of Germanos’ influential agenda was the mutual enrichment of divided Christians through the sharing of experience, the common study of existing problems, and the charitable recognition of one another at various levels. In its final paragraph the encyclical referred to the fellowship it envisaged growing between the churches by using the Greek word Koinonia, which has since become a landmark, a focal idea, in the history of the worldwide ecumenical movement. It was on this encyclical that W. A. Visser’t Hooft, the first general secretary of the WCC, commented: “With its 1920 encyclical, Constantinople rang the bell of our assembling.” |
| The interpretation of Scripture is not available to just “any fool.” It has been hidden, purposively by God. And it is hidden in a figure. The trouble with reading Scripture is that almost everybody thinks they can do it. This idea is rooted in the assumptions of Protestant thought: only if the meaning of Scripture is fairly obvious and more or less objective can it serve as a source of unmediated authority for the believer. If any particular skill or mastery is required, then the skillful masters will be the mediators of meaning for all the rest. The concept of any intervening authority is anathema to the Protestant project. It is equally unsuitable to the assumptions of the modern world. For the modern world, born in the Protestant milieu, is inherently democratic . The individual, unaided, unbridled, and unsubmitted, is the ultimate authority. These assumptions are greatly removed from the thoughts of the fathers of the Church. No matter how “literal” a father’s treatment of Scripture might be, he never assumed the meaning of Scripture to be obvious and universally accessible. The clear consensus of the fathers is found in the words of the Ethiopian Eunuch: “How can I [understand the Scripture] unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31). Andrew Louth, writing in his book, Discerning the Mystery , says: If we look back to the Fathers, and the tradition, for inspiration as to the nature of theology, there is one thing we meet which must be paused over and discussed in some detail: and that is their use of allegory in interpreting the Scriptures. We can see already that for them it was not a superfluous, stylistic habit, something we can fairly easily lop off from the trunk of Patristic theology. Rather it is bound up with their whole understanding of tradition as the tacit dimension of the Christian life: allegory is a way of entering the ‘margin of silence’ that surrounds the articulate message of the Scriptures, it is a way of glimpsing the living depths of tradition from the perspective of the letter of the Scriptures. Of course the question of allegory in the Fathers is complex (and often rendered unduly complicated by our own embarrassment about allegory): but whatever language the Fathers use to describe their exegetical practice (and there is no great consistency here), they all interpret Scripture in a way we would call allegorical, and allegoria is the usual word the Latin Fathers use from the fourth century onwards to characterize the deeper meaning they are seeking in the Scriptures. |
| [T]he most important reason why Cyril is often depicted as a Miaphysite theologian is the self-perpetuating myth that the mia physis formula would be his favorite formula, which he employed many times. We find this over and over again in the literature on the archbishop … How often does Cyril of Alexandria actually employ the mia physis formula? In the writings of the first two years of the Nestorian controversy we encounter it two times only, once in Contra Nestorium, and once in a quotation in Oratio ad Dominas. In comparison, ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis is found seventeen times in Contra Nestorium alone (plus four times ‘according to hypostasis’ with other nouns or verbs), four times in the Second Letter to Nestorius, five times in Oratio ad Dominas (plus once ‘according to hypostasis’ with another phrase), four times in the Third Letter to Nestorius, once in the anathemas (and once ‘separated according to hypostasis’ in Oratio ad Augustas). Therefore, at this stage of the controversy, Cyril’s ‘favorite phrase’ is ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis’, certainly not the mia physis formula. However, after Theodoret attacked the expression ‘union/unite(d) according to hypostasis’ as an innovation, Cyril dropped it altogether. It may be added that in Oratio ad dominas, the mia physis formula is found in a quotation from Apollinarius’s Letter to Jovian, which Cyril thought to be written by Athanasius. His explicit reason for this quotation is the occurrence of the epithet ‘Theotokos’, not that it contains the formula. He does not in any way refer to or discuss the formula. In the one time that he speaks of ‘one nature, the incarnate [nature] of the Word himself ’ in Contra Nestorium, it is immediately followed by the analogy of soul and body. Therefore, it should be interpreted in light of this comparison. Before the reunion with the Orientals in 433, there is only one other work of Cyril’s in which he speaks of ‘one nature’ in a christological context, Contra Orientales. We find the same quotation of pseudo-Athanasius which we also encountered in Oratio ad Dominas, now in Cyril’s defence of the eighth anathema, which states that Emmanuel should be honoured with one worship. Obviously, the reason for this quotation is not that it contains the mia physis formula, but that it also speaks of one worship. After citing pseudo-Athanasius, Cyril gives a brief quotation from Nestorius, “Let us confess God in man; let us revere the man who is co-worshipped because of the divine connection with God the Word”, which he discusses. Cyril then refers to an argument which Andrew of Samosata has used against him: he himself has said that the Son is co-seated on the throne with the Father, together with his own flesh; since συν and μετa are the same thing, why does he attack someone who says that the man must be co-worshipped (συν-) with God the Word and co-named (συν-) God? |
| John Anthony McGuckin Parousia MATTHEW J. PEREIRA The Greek term parousia, within the context of the New Testament, denotes the “presence” or “arrival” of Jesus Christ at the Eschaton (Matt. 24.3; 1Cor. 15.23 ). Early Christian expectations of apocalyptic salvation were foreshadowed in Palestinian literature, as can be seen by reference to the Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the Qumran texts (Russell 1964). The early church’s sense of the delay of the glorious return of Christ in judgment ( Jn. 21.21–23 ) provided Christians the opportunity to rearticulate the Parousia in a manner that reflected their own theological concerns, which were shaped within specific social and ecclesial settings (Aune 1975). Beyond exclusively focusing on the “last days,” patristic theologians extensively interpreted the Parousia as a present spiritual reality, part of the resurrection mystery, which pointed towards a future hope. In the early church the Parousia denoted a wide range of spiritual realities, such as the nearness of the gospel, the day of resurrection, Christ’s healing ministry, judgment, and accommodation to humanity. In his Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35-ca. 98/117) proclaimed that the gospel possesses the transcendent “appearance” of our Lord Jesus Christ, his passion and resurrection ( Phil. 9.2 ). Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) interprets the Parousia as Christ’s power, whereby the Lord resurrects the dead and heals the sick upon his arrival. In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr also interpreted the deluge as a Christ-event; Noah and his family totaled eight people and thus allegorically represented the eighth day, which is when Christ “appeared” (had his Parousia) and rose from the dead (Dial. 88.2). Further, in his First Apology, Justin parallels the prophecy of Isaiah with Christ’s healing presence; it is at the Lord’s “coming” that the “lame shall leap ... the lepers be cleansed, and the dead shall rise” (I Apol. 48.2). In the Stromateis Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) argues that the “advent” of the Savior will divide the believers from the disobedient (Strom. 1.18). The Lord’s arrival clearly reveals the spiritual state of each person, and thus ensures there will be only just judgment. Further, Clement teaches God has no natural relation with humanity, yet the Lord “accommodated” himself to our weakness (Strom. 2.16). In brief, Christian theologians in the first three centuries interpreted the Parousia as a fundamental christological event associated with Christ’s resurrection power, healing, judgment, and nearness to redeemed humanity. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Canon Law ANDREI PSAREV Canon law is the sum of ecclesiastical regulations recognized by church authorities; the discipline, study, or practice of church jurisprudence. The term derives from the ancient Greek word kanon, meaning “yardstick” or “standard.” It has been used since the time of the early church for the rule of faith (regula fidei) established by Christ and the apostles ( Gal. 6.16 ; Phil. 3.16 ). THE TASKS OF CANON LAW As a field, canon law deals with the following issues: the sources of canon law, church order, the foundation of new Orthodox churches, the canonization of saints, the ecclesiastical calendar, control for the execution of justice, the ecclesiastical court, marriage regulations, reception of converts from other confessions, the church’s relations with civil authorities, the correlation of church law with civil law, finances, and ownership relations. Canon law includes the subjects and methods of other theological disciplines: critical analysis (church history), doctrinal teaching (dogmatics), canons of the holy fathers (patristics), baptism, and reception into the church (liturgics). The New Testament is the disclosure of the essence of the “Covenant of the Law” contained in the Old Testament Pentateuch: “Not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” ( 2Cor. 3.6 ); thus, for Christian Orthodox: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but rather faith working through love” ( Gal. 5.6 ). The Decalogue and all the commandments of Christ and his apostles have received in the Christian Church the status of law. Every church regulation is supposed to be based on them as on a source. From the very beginning, Christian society had to deal with a diversity of opinions. In order to establish consensus as to whether or not the proselytes had to observe Mosaic Law, a council of apostles was convened in Jerusalem (Acts 15). This principle of conciliarity, the convention of church representatives for an open competition of views, became one of the main mechanisms that the Orthodox Church applied, and still uses, to establish consensus. |
|
|
