Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Statements on the EP's web site (Was: On the canonical situation

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John R. Shaw
    ... JRS: In fact, the EP has not always respected even the Local Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch. Under Turkish rule, they were essentially
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 6, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com, Aleksandr Andreev <aleksandr.andreev@...>
      wrote:

      > The EP claims that it has authority to administer ALL Orthodox parishes
      > outside of the original canonical territory of the 4 (5 minus Rome)
      > original Orthodox local churches under the provision of the 28th Canon
      > of the 4th Ecumenical Council. Quote (my translation):

      JRS: In fact, the EP has not always respected even the Local Churches of Jerusalem,
      Alexandria and Antioch.

      Under Turkish rule, they were essentially subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, as
      head of the "Rhoum millet".

      In Christ
      Fr. John R. Shaw
    • aggreen1
      ***Here is how the canon is worded on the CCEL web site: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm#P5349_1101598 Canon XXVIII. Following in all
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        ***Here is how the canon is worded on the CCEL web site:

        http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm#P5349_1101598

        "Canon XXVIII.

        "Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and
        acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One
        Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the
        imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of
        the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree
        the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of
        Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted
        privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.
        And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by
        the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the
        most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is
        honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal
        privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical
        matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so
        that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the
        metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid
        as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid
        most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every
        metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of
        his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been
        declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the
        metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the
        archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been
        held according to custom and have been reported to him."

        Al


        --- In orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com, Aleksandr Andreev
        <aleksandr.andreev@...> wrote:
        >
        > The EP claims that it has authority to administer ALL Orthodox
        parishes
        > outside of the original canonical territory of the 4 (5 minus
        Rome)
        > original Orthodox local churches under the provision of the 28th
        Canon
        > of the 4th Ecumenical Council. Quote (my translation):
        >
        > "In all things following the decisions of the holy fathers, and
        > accepting the rule ... of the 150 God-pleasing bishops, who were
        in
        > council in the days of Theodosius of blessed memory, in the royal
        city
        > of Constantinople, New Rome, we decree likewise, and conclude
        about the
        > privileges of the most holy church of that same Constantinople,
        New
        > Rome. For the fathers gave to the city of old Rome special
        privileges,
        > in as much as it was the royal city. Following the same reasoning,
        the
        > 150 God-pleasing bishops also gave equal privileges to the Holy
        Throne
        > of New Rome, judging correctly, that a city, which has the honour
        of
        > being the city of the King and the Singklit, and having equal
        privileges
        > with the old royal Rome, should in ecclesiastic affairs also be
        likewise
        > elevated, and be second after it. ***Therefore only, the
        Metropolitans
        > of the regions, of Pontius, of Asia, and of Thrace, and likewise
        the
        > bishops of Barbarians[,] of [or in] above mentioned lands, are
        appointed
        > by the above-mentioned Holy Throne of the Holy Constantinopolitan
        > Church:*** each Metropolitan of the above-mentioned regions with
        the
        > bishops of the region, shall appoint diocesan bishops as it is
        appointed
        > by the Godly canons. **But the Metropolitans of the above-
        mentioned
        > lands shall be appointed, as has been said, by the Archbishop of
        > Constantinople** ..."
        > (emphasis added)
        >
        > The interpretation of this canon depends on the placement of a
        comma in
        > the greek original, as is discussed here:
        > http://www.pravoslavie.ru/cgi-bin/sykon/client/display.pl?sid=216
        (in
        > Russian). According to the interpretation of the EP, this gives
        the
        > Archbishop of Constantinople the right to appoint **all bishops
        outside
        > of the Byzantine Empire** (the bishops of Barbarians).
        >
        > I would comment that, in my reading of the canon, it only allows
        the
        > Archbishop of Constantinople to appoint bishops *for* Barbarians
        *in*
        > Pontius, Asia, and Thrace (although that doesn't make a lot of
        sense
        > either, but at least makes sense grammatically).
        > I would also argue that the canon does not apply because
        Constantinople
        > is no longer the city of the King and the Singklit; it is clearly
        stated
        > in the canon that this is the only reason why Constantinople has
        special
        > privileges.
        >
        > +Aleks
        >
        > ----------------
        > Aleksandr Andreev
        > Duke University
        > aleksandr.andreev@...
        > http://www.duke.edu/~aa63/
        >
      • Aleksandr Andreev
        The CCEL translation does not leave room for ambiguity in the interpretation: the Constantinopolitan Archbishop has the right to appoint Metropolitans for
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 7, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          The CCEL translation does not leave room for ambiguity in the
          interpretation: the Constantinopolitan Archbishop has the right to
          appoint Metropolitans for Asia, Pontius, and Thrace and bishops for
          barbarians of those regions. The Constantinopolitan Archbishop, hence,
          **does not** have an ex-officio right to appoint all bishops outside of
          the Empire. But then one has to read the original text, and I'm
          certainly no expert in Greek.

          One also has to consider the fact that at the time the canon was
          authored, there were not that many bishops outside of the Empire, and,
          historically, bishops outside of the Empire *were* appointed by
          Constantinople, at least until the autocephaly of the Russian Church
          (though frequently Russian princes appointed Metropolitans themselves
          without consulting Constantinople, which led to jurisdictional battles
          similar to our day).

          I would argue that the reason for this is more historical than
          canonical: since Russia received Orthodoxy from Constantinople, then it
          also should receive its bishops from Constantinople, until a time when
          the Russian Church can administer itself. Likewise, since America
          received Orthodoxy from Russia, it should receive its bishops from the
          Russian Church until a time when an American Church can administer
          itself (which was certainly not the case now, as demonstrated by the
          current corruption scandal).

          +Aleks

          --------------
          Aleksandr Andreev
          Duke University
          aleksandr.andreev@...
          http://www.duke.edu/~aa63/
        • Olympiada
          Father John, You seem very critical of the EP. Can you explain why? Thank you. Olympiada Kane
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 8, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Father John,
            You seem very critical of the EP. Can you explain why?
            Thank you.
            Olympiada Kane
            On Jun 5, 2006, at 10:28 AM, orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com wrote:

            >
            > Message: 5
            > Date: Mon Jun 5, 2006 5:23 am (PDT)
            > From: "Fr. John R. Shaw" vrevjrs@...
            > Subject: Re: Statements on the EP's web site (Was: On the canonical
            > situation
            >
            >
            > --- In orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com, "aggreen1" <aggreen1@...> wrote:
            >>
            >> ***This statement on the web site of the Church of Constantinople,
            >> is enlightening:
            >
            >> "5. This is something that,
            >> according to the canons, applies to all the Churches and to Rome,
            >
            > JRS: In other words, the EP speaks as if Rome were still one of the
            > Local Orthodox
            > Churches!
            >
            >> except for the privilege of the jurisdiction outside their
            >> boundaries of the Churches of the Diaspora, a privilege that was
            >> solely given to Constantinople...
            >
            > JRS: But who "gave" that "privilege" to Constantinople?
            >
            > There was no diaspora when the last Ecumenical Council met. Western
            > Europe and England
            > were still part of the Church of Rome.
            >
            > And today, Constantinople is no longer the center of any Byzantine
            > Empire. The EP is only
            > a handful of people (and not the most trustworthy people at that),
            > living in Turkish
            > Istanbul.
            >
            > In Christ
            > Fr. John R. Shaw
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... JRS: The current Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomw, has deliberately caused disruption in the life of the Russian Church, ever since he came into
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com, Olympiada <olympiada06@...> wrote:

              > Father John,
              > You seem very critical of the EP. Can you explain why?

              JRS: The current Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomw, has deliberately caused
              disruption in the life of the Russian Church, ever since he came into power.

              Just today, it was announced that he has "accepted" Bishop Basil Osborne.

              However, so far as I know, the Moscow Patriarchate had not only not released Bishop Basil,
              but had expressly forbidden him to join another jurisdiction, at least for the time being.

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.