Before launching into a critique of ecclesiological ideas manifest in the issue in Ukraine, I first want to say with the talk of canons, that the relationship of hierarchs and the relation of Churches is a matter subject to Holy Tradition. It is governed by the canons and rules of the Holy Fathers as they were inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit to set them forth for us. It appears, though, in practice that the matter is governed more by politics and power plays than by obedience to the Fathers. Given our fallen condition, this is undoubtedly going to happen, but nevertheless through the talk of canons, there remains an awareness of the Tradition and the rules that govern relations and it is to these that the article is directed. With politics there are few rules, and should one believe that is how Christ intends us to run His church then may the best patriarch win. However, for those who believe that the Church is governed by the rule of law as manifesting Christ’s continuing headship of the Church, then please read on.
It is attempted herein to explore the canonical claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to act in Ukraine. An interview with Archbishop Job (Getcha), posted on the site Panorthodox Synodin English, will provide a helpful starting point.
When answering the question, “What special privileges or functions does the Ecumenical Patriarch have…?”, Archbishop Job replied:
The Ecumenical Patriarch is not only one among the patriarchs in the Orthodox Church. He is not only “the first among equals”. Incidentally, the Latin formula “primus inter pares” is nowhere to be found in Orthodox Church law, which, on the contrary, refers to the “seniority of honour” (presbeia timês), indicating a certain hierarchy or at least some sort of order. Having this “seniority of honour” according to the sacred canons, the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the “head” and “protos” in the Orthodox Church, must ensure the unity of the Local Churches and coordinate them… Furthermore, according to canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the Ecumenical Patriarch has the right to accept appeals (ekkliton) from clerics and bishops (including those from other Local Churches). He also has the right to establish stavropegia (including those on the territory of other Local Churches).
We know from the canons of the Church (2ndEC: canon 3; 4thEC: canon 28; 6thEC: canon 36) that Constantinople, as New Rome, was given the same authority and privileges that Old Rome had among the Churches. We also know that Old Rome was the first See of the Church and this position was manifest in a number of ways that were beyond the normal duties of a bishop, metropolitan or even a patriarch—the three layers of the Church episcopal hierarchy. There is a good case that one of these privileges was to hear appeals from anywhere with evidence that Rome dealt with cases on appeal even from eastern Churches. Constantinople is given the same right, as claimed in the interview above, and this seems justified on the evidence available, such as canons 9, 17 and 28 of the 4thEcumenical Council. Further, St Leo the Great (Letter 14: To Anastasius, Bishop Of Thessalonica) also speaks of the Churches converging onto one See, Rome, for the unity of the Churches; thus, this privilege should also properly belong to New Rome because the need remains, even if Old Rome ceased to maintain the role.
It appears to me that the See of Rome played an essential role for the unity of the Churches and that that role continues today in Constantinople, which should truly be understood as the See of Rome with all the same powers and functions as Old Rome. This is a position that no other patriarch can hold but only that of Rome, which is why the Fathers stressed that Constantinople was New Rome. While Old Rome remained in the Church, it took priority over New Rome, which came second to her, but since the fall of Old Rome, Constantinople, as New Rome, exercises all the privileges of Rome as the first (even head) of the Churches; “Ecumenical Patriarch” is more than a pretty name.
Let’s develop this last point further. There is a major lack of unity in the Orthodox Church at present; it is not seen as one Church but as a number of different Churches. This, I believe, is largely due to the degradation of the patriarchs to national Church leaders, which is properly the level of a metropolitan, as in Ukraine. The patriarchs should be transnationalas a function of unifying national Churches and preserving Church Tradition, rather than being subject to issues of a single nation. There is also need for a bishop, inclusive of flock, to stand ahead of the others as a type of universal witness to the unity of all Churches as One Church. Whatever else may be said about the situation in Old Rome, it is considered a single ecclesiastical body, whereas the world thinks of the Orthodox Churches as separate national Churches that are united by long beards.
What is lacking among the Orthodox Catholic Churches is a consistent universal recognition in Tradition of a first See as being an unchanging centre of unity of one Church, although neither as lord over them nor immune to heresy. Compounding the matter is the disobedience to the ancient principle that each bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch has a fixed geographical territory and that there is only one of each in each territory. This principle is crucial because it prevents the Church from becoming identified with human characteristics, such as ethnicity and class, and thus denying each local Church to be the Catholic Church, the fullness of the Christian faithful in all times and places, in each place encompassing all nations and classes in itself. The principle, enshrined in the holy canons such as canon 2 of the 2ndEcumenical Council, states that bishops are not to act outside their territory, nor metropolitans outside their territory, nor patriarchs outside their territory, that is, not to interfere in the territory of others. These territories need to be defined and respected, or rather, they have been largely defined by the Fathers and we need to keep them intact. Only mission work into undefined areas, such as territory of barbarian nations, can modify territorial boundaries of a patriarchate, but should not cross into the territory of another patriarch. Mission should be coordinated at the patriarchal level because it transcends the national or regional boundaries of the metropolitans.
Each patriarch can conduct mission into barbarian lands, as clearly seen in the history of the Church, not just Constantinople. Nevertheless, patriarchs’ mission work should be within definite parameters too, such as arguably: Antioch to the East until China and even to Australasia; Russia to the North including north China, Japan, Korea; and Alexandria to Africa. Mission should continue contiguous with territory and not disconnected to distant continents. If, as in the Balkans in the ninth century, two patriarchs have reasonable claim to the same territory for mission, then let the locals choose whom they will. Also, since the schism with Old Rome, New Rome should be locum tenens for the former’s patriarchal territory of Western Europe because this territory is already defined in relation to the Church and in principle territorial boundaries should not be changed once set. Therefore the boundaries set by Old Rome as Patriarch in union with the Church should be recognised today and, because the territory is properly the jurisdiction of Old Rome, only Constantinople, as (New) Rome, has a position to be locum tenens for this to maintain the territorial principle. The Americas are an interesting case because if Old Rome had remained in the Church it would have been the main mission patriarch there, at least in the south. Northern and western America had legitimate missions from Russia, so that jurisdiction has legitimate claim, or rather the OCA as continuing the mission but granted independence from the Patriarch of Moscow. There needs to be a discussion as to where a line should be drawn to demark north, Russian northern patriarchate, and south America, western patriarchal terriotory, and again local communities should choose a jurisdiction with reasonably arguable competing claims. No other patriarch should conduct Church activity anywhere without the permission of the territorial patriarch, and only he should establish bishops and parishes, and these should conform to ancient boundaries.
These “troublesome” rules are there to ensure that there is the presence of one Church for all peoples and not a mess of national Churches appointing numerous bishops to the same city as if the other is not, which means Churches are so identified with their national origin that locals joining the Orthodox Catholic Church, the ark of salvation, have to change their nationality in the process because one cannot be saved unless one is [insert nation here.] This even degenerates to Church affiliation being categorized by nationality and not by faith and Tradition. However, if the patriarchates and the Ecumenical Patriarch were respected as transnational then the growth of parishes in Western Europe could start to develop a local character and leadership opening the door for local converts to be local while still catering to the needs of various Orthodox nationalities to worship in a familiar language.
Sadly, the canonical norm of territory was not respected, in favour of the heretical concept of nationality and confusion, as ensued with the world looking on, thus denying the Church as simply ethnic tribalism. Then when children in new lands leave a nation to join the new nation in which they live, they leave the Church too as part of the old nation rather than being part of the new, as it should be. Finally here, the structure of hierarchies as set by the Ecumenical Councils, that is ordered by God through the Fathers, is not open to change. This, like territory, is important to maintain peace, stability, and unity. Arguments over being head will only lead to strife and division and the eventual downfall of the Church, just as civil wars rupture a nation as contenders grasp for rule. The only reason for a lack of continuity in the structure is heresy, such as with Old Rome. Otherwise, the order of the bishops should remain the same until the last day.
Having said that, it is imperative that each nation should have its own synod of bishops to reflect its local national and ethnic identity and needs. This is very important, as the faith does not reject national identity or character, nor does it impose one nationality, but allows each nation to reflect itself in the local Church just as each individual is not conformed to a single character but remains himself, even as united in one body in Christ. There is a danger, though, of the Church being confused with nation and returning to the Jewish situation of identifying the chosen people with a particular ethnic or national group. The Church rather must be seen as above nations, as having a common Tradition applicable to all nations, and as such the patriarchs were give continental-sized jurisdictions over many areas to unite the local Churches of each nation as one. We see this particularly with Old Rome and with Antioch in their vast territories and how they managed the Churches there of many nations,even giving some independencesuch as the Patriarch of Antioch gave to the Church in Georgia in 1010AD; this is evidently a right of each patriarch, not only a right of Rome (Old or New). The Patriarch of Moscow was also called upon to grant independence to Kiev in 1991. (However, Archbishop Job states: “In addition to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the history of the Orthodox Church, no other Local Church has proclaimed autocephaly… the Orthodox Church in Russia does not have such a prerogative of providing autocephaly”, ignoring the granting of autocephaly by Antioch. Then he answers the question: “Is it possible to consider that the current difficult condition of separation of Ukrainian Orthodoxy is the result of the fact that at one time the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) ignored the appeal of the Council of Bishops of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC-MP) of 1991 regarding autocephaly?Archbishop Job: In my opinion yes!” thus agreeing the MP had the right to grant autocephalous status, so his confusion further undermines his statement opposed to the evidence.) The Patriarch of Alexandria is now recognized over the whole continent of Africa, although, in earlier times, Carthage managed northwest Africa with Rome. Among the patriarchs, Rome was singled out further as the first See and had extra rights to maintain unity among the patriarchs, lest the Church rupture into different Churches or start forming different Traditions. Sadly, Old Rome went on its own way in this until its divergence from the other patriarchs was too great to maintain unity in both faith and practice. As we have seen, God’s providence maintained the rights and privileges of Rome within the Church as they continued with New Rome.
Having accepted that the bishop of Rome was the first and had privileges in this regard, these privileges were also limited to protect the rights of other patriarchs, metropolitans and bishops. This is where there is an issue with the comments of Archbishop Job, who said, “But within the framework of conciliarity, the church canons emphasise that the first (protos) has the responsibility to convoke the synod (or council), and others have the duty to take part in it.” Here it seems that he is claiming that the Ecumenical Patriarch is protos of some form of ecumenical synod that he can call to council and that they have a duty to come; he is set over all the bishops of the Church with authority over them all. This is surprising and there is no evidence of such a right, even with Old Rome before the Schism; its claim to such right lies at the heart of the Schism.
Archbishop Job says that this authority comes from Apostolic Canon 34. However, this canon, as it says itself, applies to metropolitan synods as among each nation or region. While the patriarch stands above these synods, he cannot interfere with the affairs within each metropolis other than to ordain its head: They were autonomous and managed themselves. The patriarch’s jurisdiction only applied to matters beyond those of a particular metropolis, such as missions from them, as well as ordaining the metropolitan alone, and hearing appeals. We see clearly in Canon 28 of Chalcedon that, after confirming the overall rank of Constantinople as New Rome, then went on to limit its actions as patriarch and commanded it to stay out of the business of the metropolises under it. They were to ordain their own bishops and manage their own affairs. The canon was written to properly limit the authority of New Rome, which was being abused. Rome did not have unrestrained authority.
Thus, the application of Canon 34 beyond the scope of a metropolitan council needs to be seen in the context of the limitations on the rights of a patriarch: The bishops under him don’t form one synod to call by the canon but represent a number of synods, each with its own head; the rights of this head cannot be infringed upon or taken by another bishop, even the patriarch. So, Canon 34 is really limited to within a metropolitan context and fails at a patriarchal level, let alone a universal level, unless one is to suggest that the Bishop of Rome had a council of patriarchs under him. There is no evidence to support this at all, let alone the right to call an Ecumenical Council. In this, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is in error and this type of authority was claimed by Rome post-Schism and contrary to Orthodox Catholic teaching on the rights of bishops as seen in the canons. It amounts to an ecclesiological heresy as a false teaching on the rights of Rome contrary to the testimonies of the Fathers.
Reinforcing this point, each patriarch was a final court of appeal. Rome could be appealed to instead of a patriarch, but not froma patriarch. This is seen in canons 4:9 and 4:17, in which appeal is allowed to the exarch or to New Rome. It was an either or choice. Once the appeal went to the exarch it could not then go on to New Rome. This indicates that the Ecumenical Patriarch was not above the other patriarchs but played a universal role among them. He did not ordain them nor form a regular synod with them. There was no such regular synod in the history of the Church and the synods with the presence of the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, when they resided permanently in Constantinople, are exceptions due to circumstances rather than being precedent for a rule.
We can see from the evidence that Ecumenical Councils were called by the emperor and not by the Bishop or Rome (Old or New) although they could ask the emperor to call the council because he had the authority as secular ruler to force obedience from all bishops of the “world” to attend. (One must understand positions and relations In the Church in symbolic ways, grounded in tangible structures but not bound to them, but drawing symbolic value from them, such as the universal rule of the emperor, despite it being limited in matter of fact.) No bishop, even of Rome, had the authority to command all bishops to gather together for the reason given above. In this matter, the Moscow Patriarch has good grounds to resist the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
St Gregory the Great refutes such power, of being the single head of all, lest this single head lead the whole Church into heresy by command. So, while being the first head of the Church, the power of Rome was limited to prevent such an event. This issue expresses the model of the Church set in the RavennaDocument (Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, 2007), where the three layers of bishop, metropolitan and patriarch are said to be bishop, regional (patriarch) and universal(bishop of Rome). This reflects post-Schism papal ideas and the distortion of the structure in the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This in itself almost justifies the claims of “papal heresy.” So too, as an aside, any claims to change the canons of the Church, such as permitting widowed priests to remarry or intermarriage of Orthodox with non-Orthodox. Perhaps on the quiet these things happen in the hidden economy of the Church, but no change in rule should be publicly applied, else we change our Tradition and follow down the path into barely recognizable Christian worship and piety.
Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarch does have an important role with real authority for the unity of the churches that is inalienable from the See of New Rome and this needs to be respected. However, there are limits to this authority to protect the Churches from one head leading them away from Tradition, as happened in Old Rome, and to respect each one’s proper jurisdiction. The privileges to call an Ecumenical Council or to interfere without an appeal in the affairs of autocephalous Churches are not among his privileges nor has he right to modify the canons of the Church. These recent claims are troubling and post-Schism-papist in character. The balance of authority and restraint needs to be kept for the well-being of the Church, and this balance is maintained by carefully obeying all the canons that the Fathers established to guide and protect us. We need to tread the thin line between politics and papism by remaining under the rule of law, or rather the rule of Christ, our Head, Whose will is testified to by the holy canons.
Also, somewhere, I would note, as you ssaid in our chats that Abp. Job “then contradicts himself in implying that MP failed to do so in 1989-92 so created the problem” – failed to give autocephaly
Copyright John Ramsey.
True Orthodoxy 