OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 08:56:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Autocephaly  (Read 25467 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« on: February 19, 2009, 08:17:28 PM »

On a number of threads, this issue has come up.

Why is a Church, any Church, autocephalous?

Some have argued that independence of a nation doesn't mean autocephaly for its Church.  On the one hand, the Pentarchy was in one Empire, but there were Churches (i.e. Armenia) which were independant or at least autonomous, outside the Empire.  Further, the Bulgars and Serbs received an autocephalous Church rather quickly on their entry on the scene, and their baptism, whereas the Rus (however you want to see that term today) had to wait quite a while.

It would seem that in the NT, there were no autocephalous Churches: everyone was subject to the Mother Church in Jerusalem, as we see in Acts.  With the martyrdom of St. James, and the fleeing of most of the Church to Pella, Jerusalem lost her primacy and autocephaly by default.

Antioch at this point seems to have become autocephalous at this point, in fact positioning herself to claim Jerusalem as part of her patriarchate, as the bishop ordained by the Apostles, St. Ignatius, and the community as formed by the Apostles continued on.  Rome seems too, to have gained her independence at this time, for similar reasons.  Alexandria too seems to have been independent, although why is less clear.  It seems that Ephesus, which never became a patriarchate, also had a primacy of sorts in Ephesus.

So as to keep the discussion broad and wide, I'll stop here with the question: what necessitates autocephaly?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2009, 03:36:57 AM »

Antioch at this point seems to have become autocephalous at this point, in fact positioning herself to claim Jerusalem as part of her patriarchate, as the bishop ordained by the Apostles, St. Ignatius, and the community as formed by the Apostles continued on.  Rome seems too, to have gained her independence at this time, for similar reasons.  Alexandria too seems to have been independent, although why is less clear.  It seems that Ephesus, which never became a patriarchate, also had a primacy of sorts in Ephesus.

Our structure of dividing the church into territory does really enter into the discussion until after Christianity becomes the favored religion of the Roman Empire. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Byzantium would be akin to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC in the US today. These cities have primacy not only because of their size but they are regional hubs for commerce, education and were Roman Provincial centers. These cities become import to the Church because they were important to the Roman Empire when Christianity was emerging.

Autocephalisy only becomes an issue once the Roman Empire begins to collapse and it is needed to maintain good order. With the collapse of the empire in the 1300's there are only 7 or 8 areas that would fall under the autocephalis category. It is only with the rise of nationalism in the 1800's that we see a growth in the desire for autocephalisy under nationalist terms. The change is very obvious because it stops being the Church of a city (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Kiev, Moscow, Ochrid) and rather becomes the Church of a nation (Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, America). There is a reason that this topic is one of the top ones on the agenda of the Great Council that appears to becoming sooner then later.
Logged

Joseph
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2009, 12:31:37 PM »

Antioch at this point seems to have become autocephalous at this point, in fact positioning herself to claim Jerusalem as part of her patriarchate, as the bishop ordained by the Apostles, St. Ignatius, and the community as formed by the Apostles continued on.  Rome seems too, to have gained her independence at this time, for similar reasons.  Alexandria too seems to have been independent, although why is less clear.  It seems that Ephesus, which never became a patriarchate, also had a primacy of sorts in Ephesus.

Our structure of dividing the church into territory does really enter into the discussion until after Christianity becomes the favored religion of the Roman Empire.

The problem is that the "start" of autocephaly, Nicea I c. 6
Quote
Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

seems to be codifying and codifying something in existence, not creating anything.

Quote
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Byzantium would be akin to New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Washington DC in the US today. These cities have primacy not only because of their size but they are regional hubs for commerce, education and were Roman Provincial centers. These cities become import to the Church because they were important to the Roman Empire when Christianity was emerging.

I agree, what was ostensibly a secular reason becomes an ecclesiastical one, as sanctity acrews to a see by virtue of the Saints attached to it.  Hence the reason Constantinople retains her importance.

Quote
Autocephalisy only becomes an issue once the Roman Empire begins to collapse and it is needed to maintain good order.

The period between Chalcedon and Constantinople IV (879) seem to be the only period where autocephaly was not in the forefront (although boundaries between patriarchates was).

 
Quote
With the collapse of the empire in the 1300's there are only 7 or 8 areas that would fall under the autocephalis category. It is only with the rise of nationalism in the 1800's that we see a growth in the desire for autocephalisy under nationalist terms.
Again, not so different from the factors leading up to Nicea I c. 6.

Quote
The change is very obvious because it stops being the Church of a city (Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Kiev, Moscow, Ochrid) and rather becomes the Church of a nation (Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, America).
Actually Cyprus was not so much a city as a province, and Alexandria was seen as "polis" with its "chora" (countryside, in this case Egypt).

Quote
There is a reason that this topic is one of the top ones on the agenda of the Great Council that appears to becoming sooner then later.
Hopefully it and the nonexistence of the "diaspora" decided before the ranking is taken up.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2009, 04:02:24 AM »

There is a reason that this topic is one of the top ones on the agenda of the Great Council that appears to becoming sooner then later.

At the time this agenda was created at Constantinople's Chambesy Centre in the 1970s many of the Churches were under the heel of Communist and Socialist regimes.   It was expected that their participation in the proposed Great and Holy Council (possibly to be accepted as the 8th Ecumenical) would be fairly minimal and any delegates selected and controlled by their home governments.

Now the situation is much different.  The once unhappy situation of Russia and Serbia and Bulgaria has been reversed.  These are now Churches bouncing with a new vitality and Russia in particular has increased its membership by millions of faithful, tens of thousands of churches and priests and hundreds of bishops.

There is a possibility that Russia will mount a strong challenge at the Council to the ranking of the Churches in the diptychs.  I would not expect it to go for first place, supplanting Constantinople, but I wouldn't be surprised if it tries for second place, pushing Alexandria down to 3rd place.

Moscow will also want to closely examine the whole question of "primacy" in Orthodoxy.  Constantionople has made this inevitable since it promoted it so strongly in Ravenna in 2007 at the 10th meeting of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  Two years earlier at the 9th meeting in Belgrade it was also pushing the primacy issue.

Russia will also place the matter of the Bp Basil Osborne affair on the agenda.  This will involve hard decisions being adopted about the scope of Constantinople's claimed right of "eccliton" in the modern world.

All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches.  This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council.  It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church.  I agree with Fr Justin.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  We don't need this Council.

People in the New World get upset with the idea of abandoning the proposed Council.  They expect it to resolve the administrative overlapping in America.   It may and it may not.   The American Church constitutes less than 1% of global Orthodoxy.   Its problems simply do not need the convocation of an Ecumenical Council.  They can be handled on a much lower level.

Well, there you are... thoughts from Middle Earth.

   
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2009, 04:09:18 AM »

Thoughts are...are any of these on the proposed agenda?
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2009, 04:28:33 AM »

Thoughts are...are any of these on the proposed agenda?

The Agenda is not fixed. Develepments in Eastern Europe have caused other concerns to appear.



Reaction of the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Dialogue to the Agenda of the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church - U.S. Theological Consultation, 1977


http://www.scoba.us/resources/orthodox-catholic/1977reaction.html

Introduction

The agenda for the forthcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church was formulated by the Pre-Synodal Pan-Orthodox Conference, in Chambesy, Geneva, November 21-28, 1976. At the recommendation of His Eminence Metropolitan Meliton, chairman of the Conference, and at the invitation of His Eminence Archbishop Iakovos, co-chairman of our Consultation, the Orthodox-Roman Catholic Consultation in the USA discussed this agenda during its meeting in Washington, D.C., September 28-29, 1977. The Consultation welcomed the agenda as an important step toward the future Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. The following suggestions summarize various observations on the agenda by members of the Consultation. We hope that these suggestions may be of some value and of some service in the preparation of the study documents to be used as the basis of the Great Council's initial discussions.

The Agenda

Topics 1-3. The first three topics (fasting regulations, impediments to marriage, calendar) involve practical issues which deserve the attention of the Orthodox Churches. They are a fitting subject of a Great Council both because a common solution to these issues would enhance the daily life of the Orthodox Christians, and because they offer to the Council the opportunity for reflection on religious issues in the context of today's world.

Topic 1. We understand that some changes in fasting practices are advisable in view of the changing conditions and rhythm of life on some geographical areas of the Orthodox Church. It is now altogether clear, because of insufficient study, what has been the result of the changes pertaining to fasting regulations within the Roman Catholic Church. This should provide basis for the exercise of caution in the matter of proposed changes within the Orthodox Church. Disciplinary changes pertaining to fasting practices do not automatically bring about the hoped for spiritual fruits without careful preaching and instruction about the reasons for these adaptations. Another question to be raised with regard to these changes is to what extent common practices are necessary to preserve the unity of the church. Finally, discussion about fasting practices should, above all, seriously raise the question of the proper Christian attitudes toward the material world, modern consumerism, availability of foods, modern hedonism, ecology, religious discipline in contemporary society, and the like.

Topic 2. The issue regarding impediments to marriage, pertaining to both clergy and laity, as well as the possible issue of the eligibility of married clergy for the episcopate, requires discussion on the basis of an explicitly formulated theology of marriage, the presbyterate, and the episcopate. Other related themes to be dealt with are human sexuality in general, celibacy and monasticism.

Topic 3. With regard to the calendar question, the impact of Christian agreement on a common Easter date would be considerable both within and without the Christian world. The calendar question also offers an opportunity to address the question of the relationship of the church to modern science. However, a caution may also be sounded: unprepared changes in calendar matters could signal enormous pastoral problems.

Topic 4. It seems to us that the resolution of the Diaspora problem might serve to better express the communion ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. The question of the Diaspora should be investigated against the background of the idea of the catholicity of the church. An attempt in this regard has already been made at the Second World Conference of the Orthodox School of Theology, Penteli, Athens, August 19-29, 1976.

Topic 5. On the question of the relationship of the Orthodox Church to other Christian churches and communities, special attention should be given to promoting closer relations with the Oriental Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Old Catholic Church, and the Anglican Communion. We see that this may involve a thorough study of the principles which have traditionally determined Orthodox views regarding the ecclesial status of "separated Christians," and "separated churches."

Topic 6. The question of the ranking of autocephalous churches raises the issue of the practical and theological significance of rank per se within the Orthodox Churches. Why, for instance, has the actual importance--past or present--of certain churches in fostering the life of the entire church been the crucial factor in their gaining prominence in rank among their family of churches?

Topic 7. It seems to us that under the theme of autonomy and autocephaly some consideration should be given to thelimits of uniformity compatible with the unity of the church.

Topic 8. We feel that the consideration of the terms under which autonomy is granted to local churches might take in view the history of the Roman Catholic Church's practice of removing the status of "missionary church" from locally established churches. The history of the relationship between Rome and the Roman Catholic Church of North and South America, as well as Africa, may be useful in this matter. In this connection, the Anglican model of granting independence to missionary churches may also be instructive for the Orthodox Church.

Topic 9. We hold that the presence of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches is a valuable witness of the apostolic and catholic tradition. We feel that Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement as outlined by the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1920 is an indispensable factor in Christian efforts toward cooperation and unity between Christian churches and communities.

Topic 10. We believe that in proclaiming Christian ideals to the world the church may explicitly call attention to what it has learned from its experience in the world concerning basic Christian ideals. Hence theological reflection is needed on the presence of the Holy Spirit in the world outside the church and the values of the world in the eyes of the church. Under this topic the following specific themes may be given special attention:

a. Justice and human rights;

b. Ethical Consensus on many important issues such as sexuality, cohabitation without marriage, abortion, medical issues pertaining to the preservation of life, and the like; and

c. Study of the roles and methods of effective preaching, Christian education, and liturgical celebration toward spiritual renewal, i.e., the nature of the experience of the living God over against contemporary secularism and the modern experience of the "absence of God."

Conclusion

The agenda of the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church has in view the status and unity of the Orthodox Church primarily in practical terms. However, these matters cannot be adequately discussed without raising deeper theological issues about the nature of discipline, unity, the church, the Gospel, and life. The Great Council can settle the practical issues in order to strengthen the life of the Orthodox Church. It can also make a real contribution to the proclamation of the Gospel in today's world through the witness of an effective Orthodox consensus on important theological issues pertaining to the church's presence in today's world.

Washington, D.C.
September 29, 1977
16th meeting

 

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #6 on: March 12, 2009, 08:27:35 AM »

Well, a Mod created this thread from  the Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch thread because some people were asserting that autocephaly may be rescinded by the Mother Church.
No. This thread already existed.
Look at the date on the OP of this thread, and then read all the arguments that have already been made before asking the same questions they answer.

My point was I know of no canons on granting the status to begin with and, hence, to expect canons on rescinding it are unrealistic.

So you would agree that the assertion which caused this thread -that Mother Churches may rescind autocephaly- is misleading?
Why would that make it misleading? The status of autocephaly was created by the Church and can be rescinded by the Church. Autocephaly is not a Mysterion like Baptism, Chrisimation or Holy Orders which are inextinguishable, Autocephaly is not a Divine Right, it is not even a Gospel ideal- it's a failure. Its a compromise to schism for the sake of unity.

What schism?  Nicea c. vi recognizes the autocephaly of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.  Note recognizes, not grant.

No, it is not a Divine Right, but it is as much a part of the hieararchical nature of the Church as the order of the diaconate, which is also of ecclesiastical, rather than direct Divine Origin.

And it is quite the Gospel Ideal: puts the breaks on someone else being the Lord of the Church, which has happened in a communion we all know.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
monkvasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC 0f USA
Posts: 653



« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2009, 09:15:27 AM »

All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches.  This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council.  It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church.  I agree with Fr Justin.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  We don't need this Council.

The Church needs a Council.  The problem, I think, stems from the fact there has been such a long time between the proposed Council and the last one.  A prime example...look what happened with the Roman Church, customs became traditions with a capital "T".  While there will be no doctrinal issues, there are lots of issues that need to be covered.  Some will want the calendar issue included, others the fasting regulations.  I'm sure someone would want to include changes in the Liturgy...that I'm not in favor of.  Female deacons?  Yes!  Overlapping jurisdictions, like America, Great Britian, and Europe needs to be addressed.  Maybe its time to create some new Patriarchates? 
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: March 12, 2009, 09:32:03 AM »

All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches.  This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council.  It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church.  I agree with Fr Justin.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  We don't need this Council.

The Church needs a Council.   

Why?

We have convened Great Councils in the past ONLY in response to a serious heresy threatening the Church - Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. Our Churches have not faced any such major heresies since the last Council in 787 AD. Yes, there have been minor heresies (e.g., the early 20th century "Nameworshipping" heresy among some of the Russians) but these have not affected the whole Church and were able to be dealt with successfully on a local level.

And there is another point which would indicate the perils of calling a Council without any greatly pressing need - we only need look at Vatican II and its not always happy results. Aggiornamento has not been without its down side. "Better to let sleeping dogs lie" as they say. The Holy Spirit has brought us to where we are today. That is enough for us.

Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous impact of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect which liturgical collapse has caused on all other aspects of his Church's life:


"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”


"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.

Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: March 12, 2009, 10:07:07 AM »

The problem is that the "start" of autocephaly, Nicea I c. 6
Quote
Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

seems to be codifying and codifying something in existence, not creating anything.

I agree, what was ostensibly a secular reason becomes an ecclesiastical one, as sanctity acrews to a see by virtue of the Saints attached to it.  Hence the reason Constantinople retains her importance.

The period between Chalcedon and Constantinople IV (879) seem to be the only period where autocephaly was not in the forefront (although boundaries between patriarchates was).

Again, not so different from the factors leading up to Nicea I c. 6.

Actually Cyprus was not so much a city as a province, and Alexandria was seen as "polis" with its "chora" (countryside, in this case Egypt).

We may be projecting our definition and presuppositions of Autocephaly on an older model that was used for the Ancient Sees.  I do not think we can describe Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus, and Jerusalem as autocephalous in the same way that we would speak of Romania, Russia, Greece, etc. as Autocephalous.  The territory of the ancient sees is defined by which ecclesiastical diocese they influence (yes, I know, the ecclesiastical diocese followed the civil diocese, but there wasn't this idea of a hard border); the territory of the modern sees is defined by national territory, border, (and influence, in the cases of churches with "diaspora").  The generation of the ancient sees was organic, and then later recognized; the generation of the modern ones was violent (in the sense of breaking away, not actual physical violence like war), and then later recognized.  The independence of the ancient sees was unconditional, with no formal declaration of their extent, just formal decrees affirming disputed areas; the independence of the modern sees is conditional, defined by a document handed down by the Mother Church which sets territorial limits and defines the relationship between the two.

Hopefully it and the nonexistence of the "diaspora" decided before the ranking is taken up.

I agree on the "diaspora" thing - needs to be handled before everything else.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: March 12, 2009, 10:29:31 AM »

the generation of the modern ones was violent

I don't think we are *that* bad!   Smiley


Patriarchate of Moscow ----- peaceful
Patriarchate of Serbia  ------ peaceful
Patriarchate of Romania ----- peaceful
Patriarchate of Bulgaria  ----- messy
Patriarchate of Georgia ------ messy
Church of Cyprus  ----------- peaceful
Church of Greece ------------peaceful (initial hiccups)
Church of Poland ------------ peaceful
Church of Albania ----------- peaceful
Church of the Czech Lands -- peaceful
and Slovakia
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #11 on: March 12, 2009, 10:33:33 AM »

the generation of the modern ones was violent

I don't think we are *that* bad!   Smiley


Patriarchate of Moscow ----- peaceful
Patriarchate of Serbia  ------ peaceful
Patriarchate of Romania ----- peaceful
Patriarchate of Bulgaria  ----- messy
Patriarchate of Georgia ------ messy
Church of Cyprus  ----------- peaceful
Church of Greece ------------peaceful (initial hiccups)
Church of Poland ------------ peaceful
Church of Albania ----------- peaceful
Church of the Czech Lands -- peaceful
and Slovakia 

No, I used violent in the sense of sudden and unwanted; most of the above moves for autocephaly were made without the approval or desire of the Mother Churches, and were only begrudgingly accepted decades (if not centuries) later.  They were moves that likely hurt the Church in many cases.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #12 on: March 12, 2009, 12:59:07 PM »

The problem is that the "start" of autocephaly, Nicea I c. 6
Quote
Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

seems to be codifying and codifying something in existence, not creating anything.

I agree, what was ostensibly a secular reason becomes an ecclesiastical one, as sanctity acrews to a see by virtue of the Saints attached to it.  Hence the reason Constantinople retains her importance.

The period between Chalcedon and Constantinople IV (879) seem to be the only period where autocephaly was not in the forefront (although boundaries between patriarchates was).

Again, not so different from the factors leading up to Nicea I c. 6.

Actually Cyprus was not so much a city as a province, and Alexandria was seen as "polis" with its "chora" (countryside, in this case Egypt).

We may be projecting our definition and presuppositions of Autocephaly on an older model that was used for the Ancient Sees.  I do not think we can describe Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus, and Jerusalem as autocephalous in the same way that we would speak of Romania, Russia, Greece, etc. as Autocephalous.  The territory of the ancient sees is defined by which ecclesiastical diocese they influence (yes, I know, the ecclesiastical diocese followed the civil diocese, but there wasn't this idea of a hard border); the territory of the modern sees is defined by national territory, border, (and influence, in the cases of churches with "diaspora").  The generation of the ancient sees was organic, and then later recognized; the generation of the modern ones was violent (in the sense of breaking away, not actual physical violence like war), and then later recognized.  The independence of the ancient sees was unconditional, with no formal declaration of their extent, just formal decrees affirming disputed areas; the independence of the modern sees is conditional, defined by a document handed down by the Mother Church which sets territorial limits and defines the relationship between the two.
Although there are differences, that is not absolute.  Yes, there were borders which followed the civil dioceses, but there were differences: it was the attachment of Libya to Alexandria's jurisdiction which prompted the canon of Nicea in the first place.  Antioch tried to assert control over the whole of the civil Diocese of the East, which led to the clash (and canon) over Cyprus.  There was an organic development, but that is not absent in the "modern" autocephalous churches: Romania had a Church back when it was still Dacia.  And Constantinople's rise and growth is just as "artificial" as the modern autocephalies, the Ecumenical Council being the "Mother Church" and the canons its document.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #13 on: March 12, 2009, 01:48:28 PM »

The problem is that the "start" of autocephaly, Nicea I c. 6
Quote
Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

seems to be codifying and codifying something in existence, not creating anything.

I agree, what was ostensibly a secular reason becomes an ecclesiastical one, as sanctity acrews to a see by virtue of the Saints attached to it.  Hence the reason Constantinople retains her importance.

The period between Chalcedon and Constantinople IV (879) seem to be the only period where autocephaly was not in the forefront (although boundaries between patriarchates was).

Again, not so different from the factors leading up to Nicea I c. 6.

Actually Cyprus was not so much a city as a province, and Alexandria was seen as "polis" with its "chora" (countryside, in this case Egypt).

We may be projecting our definition and presuppositions of Autocephaly on an older model that was used for the Ancient Sees.  I do not think we can describe Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus, and Jerusalem as autocephalous in the same way that we would speak of Romania, Russia, Greece, etc. as Autocephalous.  The territory of the ancient sees is defined by which ecclesiastical diocese they influence (yes, I know, the ecclesiastical diocese followed the civil diocese, but there wasn't this idea of a hard border); the territory of the modern sees is defined by national territory, border, (and influence, in the cases of churches with "diaspora").  The generation of the ancient sees was organic, and then later recognized; the generation of the modern ones was violent (in the sense of breaking away, not actual physical violence like war), and then later recognized.  The independence of the ancient sees was unconditional, with no formal declaration of their extent, just formal decrees affirming disputed areas; the independence of the modern sees is conditional, defined by a document handed down by the Mother Church which sets territorial limits and defines the relationship between the two.
Although there are differences, that is not absolute.  Yes, there were borders which followed the civil dioceses, but there were differences: it was the attachment of Libya to Alexandria's jurisdiction which prompted the canon of Nicea in the first place.  Antioch tried to assert control over the whole of the civil Diocese of the East, which led to the clash (and canon) over Cyprus.  There was an organic development, but that is not absent in the "modern" autocephalous churches: Romania had a Church back when it was still Dacia.  And Constantinople's rise and growth is just as "artificial" as the modern autocephalies, the Ecumenical Council being the "Mother Church" and the canons its document.

Again, disagree; the Ecumenical Council only reaffirmed what was in dispute (the Metropolitan sees consecrated by Constantinople in Thrace/Macedonia, etc.); it doesn't mention Greece, which was within the sphere of Constantinople, and undisputed-ly so.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #14 on: March 12, 2009, 01:59:16 PM »

The problem is that the "start" of autocephaly, Nicea I c. 6
Quote
Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also.  Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.  And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.  If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

seems to be codifying and codifying something in existence, not creating anything.

I agree, what was ostensibly a secular reason becomes an ecclesiastical one, as sanctity acrews to a see by virtue of the Saints attached to it.  Hence the reason Constantinople retains her importance.

The period between Chalcedon and Constantinople IV (879) seem to be the only period where autocephaly was not in the forefront (although boundaries between patriarchates was).

Again, not so different from the factors leading up to Nicea I c. 6.

Actually Cyprus was not so much a city as a province, and Alexandria was seen as "polis" with its "chora" (countryside, in this case Egypt).

We may be projecting our definition and presuppositions of Autocephaly on an older model that was used for the Ancient Sees.  I do not think we can describe Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus, and Jerusalem as autocephalous in the same way that we would speak of Romania, Russia, Greece, etc. as Autocephalous.  The territory of the ancient sees is defined by which ecclesiastical diocese they influence (yes, I know, the ecclesiastical diocese followed the civil diocese, but there wasn't this idea of a hard border); the territory of the modern sees is defined by national territory, border, (and influence, in the cases of churches with "diaspora").  The generation of the ancient sees was organic, and then later recognized; the generation of the modern ones was violent (in the sense of breaking away, not actual physical violence like war), and then later recognized.  The independence of the ancient sees was unconditional, with no formal declaration of their extent, just formal decrees affirming disputed areas; the independence of the modern sees is conditional, defined by a document handed down by the Mother Church which sets territorial limits and defines the relationship between the two.
Although there are differences, that is not absolute.  Yes, there were borders which followed the civil dioceses, but there were differences: it was the attachment of Libya to Alexandria's jurisdiction which prompted the canon of Nicea in the first place.  Antioch tried to assert control over the whole of the civil Diocese of the East, which led to the clash (and canon) over Cyprus.  There was an organic development, but that is not absent in the "modern" autocephalous churches: Romania had a Church back when it was still Dacia.  And Constantinople's rise and growth is just as "artificial" as the modern autocephalies, the Ecumenical Council being the "Mother Church" and the canons its document.

Again, disagree; the Ecumenical Council only reaffirmed what was in dispute (the Metropolitan sees consecrated by Constantinople in Thrace/Macedonia, etc.); it doesn't mention Greece, which was within the sphere of Constantinople, and undisputed-ly so.

Actually, no.  Greece was under Rome like the rest of the Balkans until after Justinian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #15 on: March 12, 2009, 02:03:11 PM »

Again, disagree; the Ecumenical Council only reaffirmed what was in dispute (the Metropolitan sees consecrated by Constantinople in Thrace/Macedonia, etc.); it doesn't mention Greece, which was within the sphere of Constantinople, and undisputed-ly so.

Actually, no.  Greece was under Rome like the rest of the Balkans until after Justinian.

Hmmm.  I'm not at work today.  Will do a bit of double-checking on timeline tomorrow when I go back in.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 02:03:24 PM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #16 on: March 12, 2009, 02:50:01 PM »

Again, disagree; the Ecumenical Council only reaffirmed what was in dispute (the Metropolitan sees consecrated by Constantinople in Thrace/Macedonia, etc.); it doesn't mention Greece, which was within the sphere of Constantinople, and undisputed-ly so.

Actually, no.  Greece was under Rome like the rest of the Balkans until after Justinian.

Hmmm.  I'm not at work today.  Will do a bit of double-checking on timeline tomorrow when I go back in.
Not the best source usually, but a good summary:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02043b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07663a.htm

Quote
At the time of the division of provinces under Hadrian, it [Illyricum, i.e. the Balkans] was subdivided into seventeen provinces, comprising also Thrace. When Constantine the Great in A.D. 324 divided the entire Roman Empire into four prefectures, Illyricum, as one prefecture, was assigned to Western Rome, the residence of the praetorian prefect being Sirmium. On the accession of Theodosius I (379), the prefecture was divided into Eastern and Western Illyricum, the former embracing the two civil dioceses of Macedonia, including Epirus, Thessaly, and Greece, and Dacia, under the jurisdiction of a praetorian prefect residing at Thessalonica (Saloniki). Western Illyricum vas placed as a civil diocese under the authority of a vicar of the prefect of Italy residing at Sirmium. In 379, or more probably, not until 395, Eastern Illyricum became a part of the Eastern Empire (cf. Rauschen, "Jahrbücher der christlichen Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius dem Grossen," Freiburg, 1897, 469-73).

Ecclesiastically, the whole of Illyricum, which had first received Christianity from St. Paul the Apostle, and Titus, his disciple, was from the first under the Bishop of Rome, as the Patriarch of the West, and, after the division of the empire, formed the eastern part of the territory subject to the pope, as Patriarch of Rome, although politically a part of Byzantium. As the patriarchs of Constantinople endeavoured to extend their patriarchal authority over Eastern Illyricum, the popes sought to preserve intact their jurisdiction over the eastern part of Illyria by appointing the bishops of Thessalonica papal vicars for Illyricum. The first of these vicars is said to have been Bishop Acholius or Ascholius, (d. 383 or 384), the friend of St. Basil. His successor, Anysius, was confirmed by Pope Damasus and his successor, Pope Siricius, as representative of the Roman See. In like manner, the succeeding popes, Anastasius I and Innocent I, extended the powers of the bishops of Thessalonica over Illyria. The authority vested in the bishops of Thessalonica over the metropolitans and other prelates of Illyria was substantially that usually enjoyed by a patriarch, except that patriarchal power is ordinary and attached to a definite see, while the jurisdiction of the vicars of Thessalonica was delegated; they exercised the patriarchal authority belonging to the pope, as his special commissary. The papal Vicariate of Thessalonica persisted for a century with practically no interruption until the connection was weakened by the first Greek schism, brought about by Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople (471-89), and Petrus Mongus of Alexandria over the "Henoticon". The bishops of Illyria withdrew from communion with Rome, without attaching themselves to Constantinople, and remained for a time independent. Not until Dorothea, Bishop of Thessalonica, declared for the intruded patriarch, Timotheus, did forty Illyrian bishops renounce allegiance to him (515) and proclaim to Pope Hormisdas their loyalty to Rome.

After the suppression of the Acacian Schism, the vicarship of the bishops of Thessalonica does not seem to have been immediately restored, owing to the policy of the Byzantine emperors, Zeno and Anastasius; still they enjoyed a certain precedence over the other Illyrian bishops. When, in 541, Justinian I, to increase the prestige of his native city, Scupi, the present Skoplje or Uskup) raised the bishop of that city to the rank of Archbishop of Justiniana Prima, and placed him over the ecclesiastical provinces of the civil diocese of Dacia, the vicarship was restored without consulting Pope Agapetus, but was divided between the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, for the provinces in which Latin was spoken, and the Metropolitan of Justiniana Prima, for those in which Greek was the native tongue. Pope Vigilius (c. 545) was the first to give his approbation to this arrangement. The title of papal vicar was henceforth almost an honorary title, as the popes, in the exercise of their patriarchal power, now dealt, for the most part directly with the individual bishops. At first the political situation was in their favour, Italy and Illyricum being both under the Eastern Empire. But even after a large part of both lands had been lost to the Byzantine Empire, Illyricum remained entirely under the jurisdiction of the Western patriarchs, the popes, as for example Gregory the Great and Martin I, who exercised their metropolitan authority, without any objections on the part of the Eastern emperors or the patriarchs of Constantinople. As late as the middle of the eighth century, the ecclesiastical Provinces of Eastern and Western Illyricum were undoubtedly within the Patriarchate of Rome. Soon afterwards, however, they began gradually to withdraw from communion with Rome, and the patriarchs of Constantinople succeeded in bringing Illyria under their jurisdiction. Even Pope Nicholas I attempted in vain to recover the ancient privilege of the Roman See to appoint the Bishop of Thessalonica as his vicar. From the end of the ninth century Eastern Illyria appears in the "Notitiae episcopatuum" as wholly within the Patriarchate of Constantinople

Pistos, Bishop of Athens, was present at the Council of Nikæa in 325. Bishop Modestus was at the Council of Ephesos in 431. John, Bishop of Athens, was amongst the Fathers who signed the Acts of the Sixth Œcumenical Council. He was present as "Leggate of the Apostolic See of ancient Rome".

When, under Constantine, the Empire was divided into governmental dioceses, the close relations which then were created between the Church and the State caused the ecclesiastical divisions to be often identical with the civil. By this system all of Achaia, wherein was Athens, was included within the Diocese of Eastern Illyria, of which Thessalonika was the capital. All of this Diocese of Eastern Illyria was under the direct jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. And so it remained until the reign of Leo the Isavrian. This emperor, incensed at Pope Gregory III, because of his strong opposition to Leo's iconoclastic passion, retorted against the pope by transferring these countries of the Illyrian diocese from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to that of the See of Constantinople. This occurred in the year 732. In this great struggle between the iconoclasts and the adherents to the use of the icons, the Athenians placed themselves on the side of iconolatry. While accepting without any recorded protest their transference to the jurisdiction of the Eastern patriarch, they retained the images in their churches and continued to venerate them. All the inhabitants of Greece north of the Korinthiac Gulf, who then were called Helladikoi, or Helladians, were opposed to the iconoclasts. And their opposition was so determined that they fitted out an expedition and manned a fleet, intending to attack Constantinople, depose Leo, and place their leader, Kosmas, on the throne. In this expedition, in which the Athenians doubtlessly had an important part, assistance was given by the inhabitants of the Kyklad islands, who probably furnished most of the ships. The attempt, however, was futile. The fleet was easily destroyed by the imperial ships in April, 727.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 02:51:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2009, 03:31:30 PM »

It may be not out of place to post a list of those, past and present, who have claimed autocephaly.

The bishop/patriarch of Jerusalem.  Not so much claimed but had.  She was the Mother Church, and Acts makes it clear that all the Churches defer to, or at least consult with, her.  St. James the Brother of God was specifically ordained bishop to head Jerusalem, with a primacy: "The throne of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour Himself" “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.” “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one" [note:That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius’ note ad locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above, Eusebius, History of the Chruch Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11.]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xx.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.vii.ii.html

Even with the destruction of the city and the flight of the Church from Jerusalem, the see still retained its authority: Epiphanius in his Panerion speaks of the episcopal throne of Jerusalem as fulfilling the covenant with David that his heir would always sit on his throne at Jerusalem, and Eusebius, writing before Nicea or Chalcedon, uses the term throne only for Jerusalem's cathedra.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2009, 04:46:30 PM »

Why would that make it misleading? The status of autocephaly was created by the Church and can be rescinded by the Church. Autocephaly is not a Mysterion like Baptism, Chrisimation or Holy Orders which are inextinguishable, Autocephaly is not a Divine Right, it is not even a Gospel ideal- it's a failure. Its a compromise to schism for the sake of unity.

What schism?  Nicea c. vi recognizes the autocephaly of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.  Note recognizes, not grant.

No, it is not a Divine Right, but it is as much a part of the hieararchical nature of the Church as the order of the diaconate, which is also of ecclesiastical, rather than direct Divine Origin.
How is autocephaly just as much a part of the hierarchical nature of the Church?

And it is quite the Gospel Ideal: puts the breaks on someone else being the Lord of the Church, which has happened in a communion we all know.
Wouldn't a focus on the sovereignty of each bishop as the head of his local church be equally good as a safeguard and more consistent with the eucharistic nature of the Church?  Autocephaly focuses on the "head" or primate of a regional/provincial/national church, but it does nothing to keep the head of an autocephalous regional church from asserting an authority over his diocesan bishops very much in keeping with the papal model of the Roman church.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2009, 06:38:45 PM »

Why would that make it misleading? The status of autocephaly was created by the Church and can be rescinded by the Church. Autocephaly is not a Mysterion like Baptism, Chrisimation or Holy Orders which are inextinguishable, Autocephaly is not a Divine Right, it is not even a Gospel ideal- it's a failure. Its a compromise to schism for the sake of unity.

What schism?  Nicea c. vi recognizes the autocephaly of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.  Note recognizes, not grant.

No, it is not a Divine Right, but it is as much a part of the hieararchical nature of the Church as the order of the diaconate, which is also of ecclesiastical, rather than direct Divine Origin.
How is autocephaly just as much a part of the hierarchical nature of the Church?

You didn't boldface the whole statement: as the order of the diaconate.

The Church has a hierarchical nature because the episcopacy is of divine origin, founded by Christ directly.   It is not, as the Protestants allege, an ad hoc arrangement that can be changed, abolished or established at will.  It is an irreducibe element of the Church, herself an irreducible element of the Gospel.

Now, the bishops can decide how to exercise the episcopacy for the good of the Church. In days of the Apostles, they exercised it in a primacy: St. Peter obviously has a primacy over Lebbaeus, and we are told by Tradition that the chief Apostles dared not take Jerusalem for themselves, but ordained St. James as her bishop.  So too, the Apostles exercised this power in creating the deaconate. 

So why do we need a deaconate?  Is there any reason a man must be ordained to the deaconate before a higher order?  Can a layman be ordained bishop directly, without ordination as a deacon?  Why or why not?  So too, on the other end, primacy has been a fact of life in the Church from Pentacost, and serves a purpose of unity of the Church.

And it is quite the Gospel Ideal: puts the breaks on someone else being the Lord of the Church, which has happened in a communion we all know.
Wouldn't a focus on the sovereignty of each bishop as the head of his local church be equally good as a safeguard and more consistent with the eucharistic nature of the Church?  Autocephaly focuses on the "head" or primate of a regional/provincial/national church, but it does nothing to keep the head of an autocephalous regional church from asserting an authority over his diocesan bishops very much in keeping with the papal model of the Roman church.
Yes, but the multiplicity of the heads makes an irreducible witness to  the ongoing presence of the one Head of the Church which the Vatican model does not have, as well as a check on the parochiasm that an absolute independence (versus autonomy) would lead to, as well as the check of bishops answering to a head who answers (per Apostolic canon 34) to his synod as well as to his peers who head the other autocephalous Churches.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2009, 03:24:54 AM »

Why would that make it misleading? The status of autocephaly was created by the Church and can be rescinded by the Church. Autocephaly is not a Mysterion like Baptism, Chrisimation or Holy Orders which are inextinguishable, Autocephaly is not a Divine Right, it is not even a Gospel ideal- it's a failure. Its a compromise to schism for the sake of unity.

What schism?  Nicea c. vi recognizes the autocephaly of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.  Note recognizes, not grant.

No, it is not a Divine Right, but it is as much a part of the hieararchical nature of the Church as the order of the diaconate, which is also of ecclesiastical, rather than direct Divine Origin.
How is autocephaly just as much a part of the hierarchical nature of the Church?

You didn't boldface the whole statement: as the order of the diaconate.

The Church has a hierarchical nature because the episcopacy is of divine origin, founded by Christ directly.   It is not, as the Protestants allege, an ad hoc arrangement that can be changed, abolished or established at will.  It is an irreducibe element of the Church, herself an irreducible element of the Gospel.

Now, the bishops can decide how to exercise the episcopacy for the good of the Church. In days of the Apostles, they exercised it in a primacy: St. Peter obviously has a primacy over Lebbaeus, and we are told by Tradition that the chief Apostles dared not take Jerusalem for themselves, but ordained St. James as her bishop.  So too, the Apostles exercised this power in creating the deaconate. 

So why do we need a deaconate?  Is there any reason a man must be ordained to the deaconate before a higher order?  Can a layman be ordained bishop directly, without ordination as a deacon?  Why or why not?  So too, on the other end, primacy has been a fact of life in the Church from Pentacost, and serves a purpose of unity of the Church.
Okay. Undecided  You talk a lot about the diaconate and primacy, but I asked about autocephaly.  Seeing that you gave me information totally unrelated to the question I asked, I'll ask again.  Just how is autocephaly an intrinsic part of the hierarchical nature of the Church?

And it is quite the Gospel Ideal: puts the breaks on someone else being the Lord of the Church, which has happened in a communion we all know.
Wouldn't a focus on the sovereignty of each bishop as the head of his local church be equally good as a safeguard and more consistent with the eucharistic nature of the Church?  Autocephaly focuses on the "head" or primate of a regional/provincial/national church, but it does nothing to keep the head of an autocephalous regional church from asserting an authority over his diocesan bishops very much in keeping with the papal model of the Roman church.
Yes, but the multiplicity of the heads makes an irreducible witness to  the ongoing presence of the one Head of the Church which the Vatican model does not have, as well as a check on the parochiasm that an absolute independence (versus autonomy) would lead to, as well as the check of bishops answering to a head who answers (per Apostolic canon 34) to his synod as well as to his peers who head the other autocephalous Churches.
You basically just said in different words that which you quoted.  Now, how does autocephaly place a check on the power of the autocephalous primate?  That's what I want to know.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2009, 03:54:10 AM »

All in all, the Council promises to cause utter chaos among the Orthodox Churches.  This is the reason Fr Justin Popovic wrote so strongly against calling this Council.  It will serve to introduce major tensions and even schism into the Church.  I agree with Fr Justin.  Let sleeping dogs lie.  We don't need this Council.

The Church needs a Council.   


See new thread...

Journey begins toward convening of grand pan-Orthodox synod


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20187.new.html#new

Istanbul (AsiaNews) - With the sending of letters of invitation to all the
heads of the Orthodox Churches for the two preparatory meetings for the
grand pan-Orthodox synod, scheduled for June and December of this year,
Bartholomew has set in motion the decisions made at the recent pan-Orthodox
meeting in October, held in Constantinople, and attended by deceased
patriarch of Moscow Alexy as his last act in life............

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2009, 06:47:47 AM »

Why would that make it misleading? The status of autocephaly was created by the Church and can be rescinded by the Church. Autocephaly is not a Mysterion like Baptism, Chrisimation or Holy Orders which are inextinguishable, Autocephaly is not a Divine Right, it is not even a Gospel ideal- it's a failure. Its a compromise to schism for the sake of unity.

What schism?  Nicea c. vi recognizes the autocephaly of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.  Note recognizes, not grant.

No, it is not a Divine Right, but it is as much a part of the hieararchical nature of the Church as the order of the diaconate, which is also of ecclesiastical, rather than direct Divine Origin.
How is autocephaly just as much a part of the hierarchical nature of the Church?

You didn't boldface the whole statement: as the order of the diaconate.

The Church has a hierarchical nature because the episcopacy is of divine origin, founded by Christ directly.   It is not, as the Protestants allege, an ad hoc arrangement that can be changed, abolished or established at will.  It is an irreducibe element of the Church, herself an irreducible element of the Gospel.

Now, the bishops can decide how to exercise the episcopacy for the good of the Church. In days of the Apostles, they exercised it in a primacy: St. Peter obviously has a primacy over Lebbaeus, and we are told by Tradition that the chief Apostles dared not take Jerusalem for themselves, but ordained St. James as her bishop.  So too, the Apostles exercised this power in creating the deaconate. 

So why do we need a deaconate?  Is there any reason a man must be ordained to the deaconate before a higher order?  Can a layman be ordained bishop directly, without ordination as a deacon?  Why or why not?  So too, on the other end, primacy has been a fact of life in the Church from Pentacost, and serves a purpose of unity of the Church.
Okay. Undecided  You talk a lot about the diaconate and primacy, but I asked about autocephaly.  Seeing that you gave me information totally unrelated to the question I asked, I'll ask again.  Just how is autocephaly an intrinsic part of the hierarchical nature of the Church?

The diaconate, primacy and autocephaly are all elaborations of the episcopacy that Christ left, and the Church has had and operated with all three nearly since the days of Pentacost (the diaconate and autocephaly only being able to come to the fore when the numbers in the Church provided the circumstances for it).  IOW, the Church has never existed without autocephaly, although in the first days there was only one autocephalous Church, namely Jerusalem, but somewhere in Acts Antioch becomes the second.

And it is quite the Gospel Ideal: puts the breaks on someone else being the Lord of the Church, which has happened in a communion we all know.
Wouldn't a focus on the sovereignty of each bishop as the head of his local church be equally good as a safeguard and more consistent with the eucharistic nature of the Church?  Autocephaly focuses on the "head" or primate of a regional/provincial/national church, but it does nothing to keep the head of an autocephalous regional church from asserting an authority over his diocesan bishops very much in keeping with the papal model of the Roman church.
Yes, but the multiplicity of the heads makes an irreducible witness to  the ongoing presence of the one Head of the Church which the Vatican model does not have, as well as a check on the parochiasm that an absolute independence (versus autonomy) would lead to, as well as the check of bishops answering to a head who answers (per Apostolic canon 34) to his synod as well as to his peers who head the other autocephalous Churches.
You basically just said in different words that which you quoted.  Now, how does autocephaly place a check on the power of the autocephalous primate?  That's what I want to know.
Ask the ex Patriarch of Jerusalem.  Or rather don't, I understand he thinks that he is still Patriarch.  (Point of Order: do we have to refer to him as Patriarch Irenaios? Or the monk Irenaios?  Or just Irenaios? Or Emmanouil?

Unlike the Vatican model (where there is no appeal from the bishop of Rome) or the Protestant model (where no local Church is answerable to anyone but itself, with the ensuing chaos), the Apostalic model creates a group of peers who can, and as the former Patriarch found out, do bring their number into line  when the need arises.  Without autocephaly, there would be a free for all, because all the hundreds of bishops world wide would have to individually decide what to do about him, and there would have not been the mechanism of the Holy Synod of Jerusalem dealing with him in the first place.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2009, 08:15:17 AM »

Discussion on national patriarchates aside, I always found it interesting listening to the commemoration of Patriarch Pavle.  He was Archbishop of the (ancient) see of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade, Patriarch of the serbs.  To me it just stopped there.  He was metropolitan of the biggest city, so the rest of the bishops in that immediate area were "under" him (just like in Alexandria), yet also archbishop of the ancient see which was GIVEN the autocephaly (Pec), and also patriarch (or just "father") of all serbs.  Seemed to make sense to me...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2009, 08:36:40 AM »

Discussion on national patriarchates aside, I always found it interesting listening to the commemoration of Patriarch Pavle.  He was Archbishop of the (ancient) see of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade, Patriarch of the serbs.  To me it just stopped there.  He was metropolitan of the biggest city, so the rest of the bishops in that immediate area were "under" him (just like in Alexandria), yet also archbishop of the ancient see which was GIVEN the autocephaly (Pec), and also patriarch (or just "father") of all serbs.  Seemed to make sense to me...

I've been told that American Serbs have picked up on the Russian idea of the priest commemorating his bishop AND the Patriarch but it is not that way in Serbia.  The Sluzhebnik and the Trebnik provide for the priest tro commemorate only his bishop. (If he lives in the Patriarch's diocese then of course that is the Patriarch himself.)

In my 20 years as a Serbian hieromonk I never once commemorated either Patriarch German or Patriarch Pavle but only the name of my diocesan bishop.  This is the universal practice among Serbian clergy.

Someone said that because of the schism among American Serbs the priests started commemorating the Patriarch - to make it clear that they and the parish were part of the canonical Serbian Patriarchate.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,466


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2009, 06:49:07 PM »

Discussion on national patriarchates aside, I always found it interesting listening to the commemoration of Patriarch Pavle.  He was Archbishop of the (ancient) see of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade, Patriarch of the serbs.  To me it just stopped there.  He was metropolitan of the biggest city, so the rest of the bishops in that immediate area were "under" him (just like in Alexandria), yet also archbishop of the ancient see which was GIVEN the autocephaly (Pec), and also patriarch (or just "father") of all serbs.  Seemed to make sense to me...

I've been told that American Serbs have picked up on the Russian idea of the priest commemorating his bishop AND the Patriarch but it is not that way in Serbia.  The Sluzhebnik and the Trebnik provide for the priest tro commemorate only his bishop. (If he lives in the Patriarch's diocese then of course that is the Patriarch himself.)

In my 20 years as a Serbian hieromonk I never once commemorated either Patriarch German or Patriarch Pavle but only the name of my diocesan bishop.  This is the universal practice among Serbian clergy.

Someone said that because of the schism among American Serbs the priests started commemorating the Patriarch - to make it clear that they and the parish were part of the canonical Serbian Patriarchate.


There is probably some validity to that last statement.  I also think that it might have something to do with us being in the US and Canada...?   I'm not sure what they did in other countries.  When I was in Austria they did both (now that I think about it)....so who knows.  Maybe it is the New Gracanica thing. 

Anyway, i still think it's an interesting way to think about it.   Smiley
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2009, 12:49:04 AM »

Father says is true...It Was Vladika Dionisija From the St. Sava serbian Orthodox Monastery In Libertyville
 illinois that split the serbian church and made him self a metropolitan with another bishop...they battled it out in court with the patriarchal church for years..they lost the case ,,got booted out ..thats how new gracanica monastery was founded in third lake ill...till the time metroplitan dionisija passed away ,and the second metropolitan forgot his name congradulated the new patriarch elect of serbian Pavle On his election...that's when the split began to heal....So eventually we became one again....This is what i remember from that time...
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2009, 04:19:12 PM »

It may be not out of place to post a list of those, past and present, who have claimed autocephaly.

The bishop/patriarch of Jerusalem.

To continue:

With the martyrdom of St. James, it seems the Church of Jerusalem remained under the control of the Lord's family according to the flesh, the Desposyni:
Eusebius, History of the Church III:11, 12, 19, 20
Quote
1. After the martyrdom of James, and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh, (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James. 2. They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph.  He also relates that Vespasian after the conquest of Jerusalem gave orders that all that belonged to the lineage of David should be sought out, in order that none of the royal race might be left among the Jews; and in consequence of this a most terrible persecution again hung over the Jews...But when this same Domitian had commanded that the descendants of David should be slain, an ancient tradition says that some of the heretics brought accusation against the descendants of Jude (said to have been a brother of the Saviour according to the flesh), on the ground that they were of the lineage of David and were related to Christ himself. Hegesippus relates these facts in the following words:
1. “Of the family of the Lord there were still living the grandchildren of Jude, who is said to have been the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.2. Information was given that they belonged to the family of David, and they were brought to the Emperor Domitian by the Evocatus.  For Domitian feared the coming of Christ as Herod also had feared it. And he asked them if they were descendants of David, and they confessed that they were...6. And when they were asked concerning Christ and his kingdom, of what sort it was and where and when it was to appear, they answered that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but a heavenly and angelic one, which would appear at the end of the world, when he should come in glory to judge the quick and the dead, and to give unto every one according to his works.7. Upon hearing this, Domitian did not pass judgment against them, but, despising them as of no account, he let them go, and by a decree put a stop to the persecution of the Church. 8. But when they were released they ruled the churches because they were witnesses/martyrs, and were also relatives of the Lord, And peace being established, they lived until the time of Trajan. These things are related by Hegesippus.
1. It is reported that after the age of Nero and Domitian, under the emperor whose times we are now recording,[ Trajan] a persecution was stirred up against us in certain cities in consequence of a popular uprising.  In this persecution we have understood that Symeon, the son of Clopas, who, as we have shown, was the second bishop of the church of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom.  2. Hegesippus, whose words we have already quoted in various places, is a witness to this fact also. Speaking of certain heretics, he adds that Symeon was accused by them at this time; and since it was clear that he was a Christian, he was tortured in various ways for many days, and astonished even the judge himself and his attendants in the highest degree, and finally he suffered a death similar to that of our Lord.  3. But there is nothing like hearing the historian himself, who writes as follows: “Certain of these heretics brought accusation against Symeon, the son of Clopas, on the ground that he was a descendant of David and a Christian; and thus he suffered martyrdom, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, while Trajan was emperor and Atticus governor.”  4. And the same writer says that his accusers also, when search was made for the descendants of David, were arrested as belonging to that family.  And it might be reasonably assumed that Symeon was one of those that saw and heard the Lord, judging from the length of his life, and from the fact that the Gospel makes mention of Mary, the wife of Clopas, who was the father of Symeon, as has been already shown.  5. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign.  6. He writes as follows: “They came, therefore, and took the lead of the whole church as witnesses, and as relatives of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause, before the governor Atticus.  And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified.”  7. In addition to these things the same man, while recounting the events of that period, records that the Church up to that time had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness.  8. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called.'"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xi.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xii.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xix.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xx.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxii.html

The translator has as an excursus on the Desposyni leading the whole Church the note:
Quote
On Bk. III. chap. 32, § 6 (note 14a). The Greek reads π€σης ἐκκλησίας (without the article), and so, two lines below, ἐν π€σῃ ἐκκλησί& 139·. All the translators (with the exception of Pratten in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII., who reads, “the churches”) render “the whole church,” as if reading πᾶς with the article. We have not, it is true, enough of Hegesippus’ writings to be able to ascertain positively his use of πᾶς, and it is possible that he carelessly employed it indifferently with or without the article to signify the definite “all” or “the whole.” In the absence of positive testimony, however, that he failed to draw the proper distinction between its use with and its use without the article, and in view of the fact that Eusebius himself (as well as other early Fathers so far as I am able to recall) is very consistent in making the distinction, I have not felt at liberty in my translation to depart from a strict grammatical interpretation of the phrases in question. Moreover, upon second thought, it seems quite as possible that Hegesippus meant to say “every” not “all”; for he can hardly have supposed these relatives of the Lord to have presided literally over the whole Church, while he might very well say that they presided each over the church in the city in which he lived, which is all that the words necessarily imply. The phrase just below, “in every church,” is perhaps as natural as “in the whole church.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xvii.vi.html

I would suggest "the Whole Church is correct," in view of Jerusalem's (or rather, the Desposyni's) retention of primacy after Jerusalem's destruction, translated to Pella.

Eusebius IV 2, 5, 6, 8, 7, 9, 22
Quote
1. But when Symeon also had died in the manner described, a certain Jew by the name of Justus, succeeded to the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. He was one of the many thousands of the circumcision who at that time believed in Christ.
1. The teaching and the Church of our Saviour flourished greatly and made progress from day to day; but the calamities of the Jews increased, and they underwent a constant succession of evils. In the eighteenth year of Trajan’s reign there was another disturbance of the Jews, through which a great multitude of them perished...5. But the emperor, fearing that the Jews in Mesopotamia would also make an attack upon the inhabitants of that country, commanded Lucius Quintus  to clear the province of them. And he having marched against them slew a great multitude of those that dwelt there; and in consequence of his success he was made governor of Judea by the emperor. These events are recorded also in these very words by the Greek historians that have written accounts of those times.
2. But I have learned this much from writings, that until the siege of the Jews, which took place under Hadrian, there were fifteen bishops in succession there, all of whom are said to have been of Hebrew descent, and to have received the knowledge of Christ in purity, so that they were approved by those who were able to judge of such matters, and were deemed worthy of the episcopate. For their whole church consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.  3. But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord...and finally, the fifteenth, Judas.  4. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.
1. As the rebellion of the Jews at this time grew much more serious, Rufus, governor of Judea, after an auxiliary force had been sent him by the emperor, using their madness as a pretext, proceeded against them without mercy, and destroyed indiscriminately thousands of men and women and children, and in accordance with the laws of war reduced their country to a state of complete subjection. 2. The leader of the Jews at this time was a man by the name of Barcocheba, (which signifies a star), who possessed the character of a robber and a murderer, but nevertheless, relying upon his name, boasted to them, as if they were slaves, that he possessed wonderful powers; and he pretended that he was a star that had come down to them out of heaven to bring them light in the midst of their misfortunes.3. The war raged most fiercely in the eighteenth year of Adrian, (I.e. Aug. 134 to Aug. 135) at the city of Bithara, which was a very secure fortress, situated not far from Jerusalem. When the siege had lasted a long time, and the rebels had been driven to the last extremity by hunger and thirst, and the instigator of the rebellion had suffered his just punishment, the whole nation was prohibited from this time on by a decree, and by the commands of Adrian, from ever going up to the country about Jerusalem. For the emperor gave orders that they should not even see from a distance the land of their fathers. Such is the account of Aristo of Pella, 4. And thus, when the city had been emptied of the Jewish nation and had suffered the total destruction of its ancient inhabitants, it was colonized by a different race, and the Roman city which subsequently arose changed its name and was called Ælia, in honor of the emperor Ælius Adrian. And as the church there was now composed of Gentiles, the first one to assume the government of it after the bishops of the circumcision was Marcus.

3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella.  And when those that believed in Christ had come thither from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men,

(the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men. 4. But the number of calamities which everywhere fell upon the nation at that time; the extreme misfortunes to which the inhabitants of Judea were especially subjected, the thousands of men, as well as women and children, that perished by the sword, by famine, and by other forms of death innumerable,—all these things, as well as the many great sieges which were carried on against the cities of Judea, and the excessive. sufferings endured by those that fled to Jerusalem itself, as to a city of perfect safety, and finally the general course of the whole war, as well as its particular occurrences in detail, and how at last the abomination of desolation, proclaimed by the prophets, stood in the very temple of God, so celebrated of old, the temple which was now awaiting its total and final destruction by fire,—all these things any one that wishes may find accurately described in the history written by Josephus.)

1. Among these Hegesippus was well known, We have already quoted his words a number of times, relating events which happened in the time of the apostles according to his account.2. He records in five books the true tradition of apostolic doctrine in a most simple style, and he indicates the time in which he flourished when he writes as follows concerning those that first set up idols: “To whom they erected cenotaphs and temples, as is done to the present day. Among whom is also Antinoüs [d. c. 130], a slave of the Emperor Adrian, in whose honor are celebrated also the Antinoian games, which were instituted in our day. For he [i.e. Adrian] also founded a city named after Antinoüs [Antinopolis in Egypt], and appointed prophets.” 3. At the same time also Justin [born in Samaria, a genuine lover of the true philosophy, was still continuing to busy himself with Greek literature.  He indicates this time in the Apology which he addressed to Antonine, where he writes as follows: “We do not think it out of place to mention here Antinoüs also, who lived in our day, and whom all were driven by fear to worship as a god, although they knew who he was and whence he came.” 4. The same writer, speaking of the Jewish war which took place at that time, adds the following: “For in the late Jewish war Barcocheba, the leader of the Jewish rebellion, commanded that Christians alone should be visited with terrible punishments unless they would deny and blaspheme Jesus Christ.” [N.B. the Bar Kochba revolt marked the final seperation of Christian Hebrews from the Jews, per laws instituted at the time by the Rabbi Akiva and his school.  Justin Martyr went on of couse to catechize at Rome, where he became Justin Martyr. As so did Hegesippus:]

1. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs, which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. 2. His words are as follows: “And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine.  3. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus/Being in Rome, I composed a catalogue of bishops down to Anicetus.  whose deacon was 199Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.”  4. The same author also describes the beginnings of the heresies which arose in his time, in the following words: “And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as the Lord had also on the same account, Symeon, the son of the Lord’s uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop. All proposed him as second bishop because he was a cousin of the Lord. “Therefore,  they called the Church a virgin, for it was not yet corrupted by vain discourses."...6. The same writer also records the ancient heresies which arose among the Jews, in the following words: “There were, moreover, various opinions in the circumcision, among the children of Israel. The following were those that were opposed to the tribe of Judah and the Christ: Essenes, Galileans, Hemerobaptists, Masbothæans, Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees.” ....7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. 
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.xxxv.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.v.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.ii.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.vi.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.v.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xxii.html

So it seems the primacy of the Desposyni extened to their race, the Hebrews.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2009, 04:41:35 PM »

It may be not out of place to post a list of those, past and present, who have claimed autocephaly.

The bishop/patriarch of Jerusalem.

...

So it seems the primacy of the Desposyni extened to their race, the Hebrews.

You've just argued a claim to primacy within a certain geographical region.  How are primacy and autocephaly synonymous?  I just don't see the connection. Huh  (e.g., Whether Metropolitan Jonah is a bishop under Moscow's jurisdiction or the primate of a self-heading church, His Beatitude's fundamental relationship of primacy within the Holy Synod of the Metropolia/OCA is still the same.)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 04:41:57 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2009, 05:25:23 PM »

It may be not out of place to post a list of those, past and present, who have claimed autocephaly.

The bishop/patriarch of Jerusalem.

...

So it seems the primacy of the Desposyni extened to their race, the Hebrews.

You've just argued a claim to primacy within a certain geographical region.  How are primacy and autocephaly synonymous?

A work in progress, but to answer your question, it is only with primacy that autocephaly even arises.  Otherwise you have to have all bishops ABSOLUTELY equal (sort of like congregationalist churches), which didn't exist until the rise of Protestantism.  Only with the scenario of Apostolic Canon 34, of a group of bishops acknowledging the primacy of one of their number, and seperating this group of bishops from the neighboring group of bishops acknowledging THEIR primate, do you get autonomous and autocephalous Churches.  As I will soon show, we see the rise of the first Autonomous and then Autocephalous Church, Antioch, in Acts.

My tentative plan is to go in this order:
Jerusalem, Antioch (with excursus on the Syriac areas), Cyprus, Ephesus (more in the line of why she didn't achieve autocephaly), Alexandria, North Africa, Rome, Armenia, Constantinople, Georgia, (excursus Nubia and Ethiopia) Sinai, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia, Montenegro, Greece, Romania, Albania, Poland, OCA, India.

I'm torn on the Czech Lands and Slovkia: Greater Moravia had autonomy under St. Methodius, but the Church was stamped out.  So does it follow Sinai, or Albania?  Any thoughts anyone?

Btw:
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Autocephalous

Quote
  I just don't see the connection. Huh  (e.g., Whether Metropolitan Jonah is a bishop under Moscow's jurisdiction or the primate of a self-heading church, His Beatitude's fundamental relationship of primacy within the Holy Synod of the Metropolia/OCA is still the same.)

No, it is not.

He does not reconize, per Apostolic Canon 34, Patriarch Cyril as his primate, nor does the Holy Synod of the OCA.

The Holy Synod of the OCA did not need Moscow's approval to despose of Met. Herman and discipline both him and Met. Theodosius.

Patriarch Cyril does not have the power to make the Holy Synod of the OCA auxiliaries of Met. Jonah, a la Antioch.

The bishops of the Holy Synod do not consecrate their chrism, but obtain it from Met. Jonah.  They may not get it from Patriarch Cyril.

Do I need to go on?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 05:27:28 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2009, 06:25:49 PM »

You've just argued a claim to primacy within a certain geographical region.

^ A point I forgot: I argued a claim to universal primacy.  Nothing I have posted refers to a limitation of the authority of Jerusalem.  That's next, given the situation of Jerusalem, and the nature result that the creation of another autocephalous Church limits the jurisdiction of the Mother Church.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2009, 11:52:28 PM »

Quote
  I just don't see the connection. Huh  (e.g., Whether Metropolitan Jonah is a bishop under Moscow's jurisdiction or the primate of a self-heading church, His Beatitude's fundamental relationship of primacy within the Holy Synod of the Metropolia/OCA is still the same.)

No, it is not.

He does not reconize, per Apostolic Canon 34, Patriarch Cyril as his primate, nor does the Holy Synod of the OCA.

The Holy Synod of the OCA did not need Moscow's approval to despose of Met. Herman and discipline both him and Met. Theodosius.

Patriarch Cyril does not have the power to make the Holy Synod of the OCA auxiliaries of Met. Jonah, a la Antioch.

The bishops of the Holy Synod do not consecrate their chrism, but obtain it from Met. Jonah.  They may not get it from Patriarch Cyril.

Do I need to go on?

Red herring! Angry  I talked ONLY of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod of the OCA/Metropolia, yet every one of your arguments above speaks of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with Moscow, which is not the subject of my question.  Now, how does autocephaly or the lack thereof affect Metropolitan Jonah's relationship to his own synod in North America?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2009, 11:56:33 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2009, 01:53:05 AM »

Quote
  I just don't see the connection. Huh  (e.g., Whether Metropolitan Jonah is a bishop under Moscow's jurisdiction or the primate of a self-heading church, His Beatitude's fundamental relationship of primacy within the Holy Synod of the Metropolia/OCA is still the same.)

No, it is not.
Red herring! Angry  I talked ONLY of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod of the OCA/Metropolia, yet every one of your arguments above speaks of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with Moscow, which is not the subject of my question.  Now, how does autocephaly or the lack thereof affect Metropolitan Jonah's relationship to his own synod in North America?

Each and every one of the points speak of the Holy Synod's relationship with Met. Jonah.

Quote
He does not reconize, per Apostolic Canon 34, Patriarch Cyril as his primate, nor does the Holy Synod of the OCA.

Back when Constantinople and Moscow were fighting over Estonia, and Moscow struck Constantinople from the diptychs, I knew someone who was in a PoM parish which shared facilities with a Greek church.  That all came to an abrupt halt until Pat. Alexei off in Moscow put Pat. Bartholomew back in.  The OCA parishes were not affected at all, because Met. Theodosius, NOT Pat. Alexei decided who was in the diptych.  Bishop Mercurius (or his predecessor) didn't get that choice.

Quote
The Holy Synod of the OCA did not need Moscow's approval to despose of Met. Herman and discipline both him and Met. Theodosius.

The Holy Synod would have been without power to do these things: Moscow and her Synod would have to.  Much like the GOA found out with Met. Spyridon, and, in a different vein, Archbishop Iavokos of Blessed Memory's forced retirement by Constantinople.

Quote
Patriarch Cyril does not have the power to make the Holy Synod of the OCA auxiliaries of Met. Jonah, a la Antioch.

Why this one isn't obvious is beyond me: that Met. Jonah have no power to reduce the Holy Synod to auxiliaries or to raise them to dioceses.

Quote
The bishops of the Holy Synod do not consecrate their chrism, but obtain it from Met. Jonah.  They may not get it from Patriarch Cyril.

The bishops may get their chrism from Met. Jonah and ONLY Met. Jonah.  This too, is obvious beyond need of explanation.

Do I need to go on?


MODERATION:  Post modified to eliminate first-name-only references to a few of our bishops.  -PtA
« Last Edit: March 15, 2009, 02:39:44 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2009, 02:06:27 AM »

  Otherwise you have to have all bishops ABSOLUTELY equal

As indeed, they ARE!   One bishop, one vote.

Despite all the hype associated with the primate or patriarch he has very little canonical authority beyond playing host to the annual synod of bishops.  He cannot consecrate bishops, he cannot defrock bishops.   All such important actions belong to the bishops.


Saint Justin Popovich:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2009, 02:21:58 AM »

  Otherwise you have to have all bishops ABSOLUTELY equal

As indeed, they ARE!   One bishop, one vote.

Dear Father, do you know what gerrymandering is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

Quote
Despite all the hype associated with the primate or patriarch he has very little canonical authority beyond playing host to the annual synod of bishops.
 

He determines that synod.  Why do you think it took us so long to get an Arab Patriarch in Antioch, and then, only with Russian help?  Further, in Patriarch St. Tikhon's battle with the Living Church, how is it that he had the upper hand?

Quote
He cannot consecrate bishops,

but none are consecrated without his approval.

Quote
he cannot defrock bishops.
 

No, but Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory might dispute whether that means anything.

Quote
All such important actions belong to the bishops.


Headed by their primate.

Does your Prime Minister have any constitutional power above any other representative?  Would you say that he has no more power than any other MP?

Quote
Saint Justin Popovich:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."



The difference is between the New Zealand PM  and his cabinet and the US President and his.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2009, 02:23:12 AM »

Do I need to go on?
Please don't.  It's obvious to me you don't get my point.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2009, 02:27:12 AM »

Do I need to go on?
Please don't.  It's obvious to me you don't get my point.

that is doesn't matter if the Holy Synod of the OCA knows where their head is at or not?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2009, 02:28:42 AM »

He determines that synod. 

Must be a case of different folks , different strokes.

In my Church it is the Synod which elects new bishops, so it is they who determine who should be in the Synod.

Likewise the Standing Synod which operates throughout the year for the day to day operation of the Church is chosen by the Synod of all the bishops at their annual Synod.

I appreciate that other Churches have varying systems though.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2009, 02:34:21 AM »

but none are consecrated without his approval.

Since bishops are elected at Synod it is possible that the "Primate" could find himself in the minority who do not vote for the majority candidate.  His negative vote would not annul the majority vote. 

It is not a good analogy to compare a Synod of Bishops with a government cabinet which is handpicked by the Prime Minister.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,170


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #39 on: March 15, 2009, 02:42:56 AM »

Quote
  I just don't see the connection. Huh  (e.g., Whether Metropolitan Jonah is a bishop under Moscow's jurisdiction or the primate of a self-heading church, His Beatitude's fundamental relationship of primacy within the Holy Synod of the Metropolia/OCA is still the same.)

No, it is not.
Red herring! Angry  I talked ONLY of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with the Holy Synod of the OCA/Metropolia, yet every one of your arguments above speaks of Metropolitan Jonah's relationship with Moscow, which is not the subject of my question.  Now, how does autocephaly or the lack thereof affect Metropolitan Jonah's relationship to his own synod in North America?

Each and every one of the points speak of the Holy Synod's relationship with Met. Jonah.

Quote
He does not reconize, per Apostolic Canon 34, Patriarch Cyril as his primate, nor does the Holy Synod of the OCA.

Back when Constantinople and Moscow were fighting over Estonia, and Moscow struck Constantinople from the diptychs, I knew someone who was in a PoM parish which shared facilities with a Greek church.  That all came to an abrupt halt until Pat. Alexei off in Moscow put Pat. Bartholomew back in.  The OCA parishes were not affected at all, because Met. Theodosius, NOT Pat. Alexei decided who was in the diptych.  Bishop Mercurius (or his predecessor) didn't get that choice.

Quote
The Holy Synod of the OCA did not need Moscow's approval to despose of Met. Herman and discipline both him and Met. Theodosius.

The Holy Synod would have been without power to do these things: Moscow and her Synod would have to.  Much like the GOA found out with Met. Spyridon, and, in a different vein, Archbishop Iavokos of Blessed Memory's forced retirement by Constantinople.

Quote
Patriarch Cyril does not have the power to make the Holy Synod of the OCA auxiliaries of Met. Jonah, a la Antioch.

Why this one isn't obvious is beyond me: that Met. Jonah have no power to reduce the Holy Synod to auxiliaries or to raise them to dioceses.

Quote
The bishops of the Holy Synod do not consecrate their chrism, but obtain it from Met. Jonah.  They may not get it from Patriarch Cyril.

The bishops may get their chrism from Met. Jonah and ONLY Met. Jonah.  This too, is obvious beyond need of explanation.

Do I need to go on?


MODERATION:  Post modified to eliminate first-name-only references to a few of our bishops.  -PtA
Ialmisry, please do a better job of proofreading your posts so that we don't have any references to our hierarchs by first name only.  Every time you speak of a bishop, you need to make sure you include his title with his name.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2009, 07:57:46 AM »

He determines that synod.  Why do you think it took us so long to get an Arab Patriarch in Antioch, and then, only with Russian help?  Further, in Patriarch St. Tikhon's battle with the Living Church, how is it that he had the upper hand?

No, the synod itself determines its membership; they set rules for rotation (if necessary), etc.  That's the way it works in Constantinople, and I suspect also in Pec/Belgrade, Antioch, and Moscow.

but none are consecrated without his approval.

Eh, I think the way it's worded is the synod's approval; but yes, the ancient standard was to have the "Metropolitan's" approval for the election of any other bishop within the synod, so the Patriarch would approve the election of anyone on his synod - and the synod would approve the election of the patriarch.  Balance-counterbalance.

No, but Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory might dispute whether that means anything.

While he wielded unusual power for one bishop, it was because those who had the ability to veto or correct him chose not to.  This doesn't negate the fact that he didn't have the ability to depose/defrock any of the bishops in the US.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2009, 07:58:03 AM by cleveland » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #41 on: March 15, 2009, 08:01:37 AM »

Why is a Church, any Church, autocephalous?

I would almost argue that none of the Churches are truly "autocephalous."  The difference between autocephaly and autonomy is the election of the president of the synod; however, that election must be ratified by the other autocephalous churches - if it is not, then what is the use of electing your own head, only to be out of communion with the Church?  If it is (the election ratified), then it in a sense had to be indeed approved by all the foreign patriarchates and archdiocese (foreign to the ones holding the election).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2009, 09:30:24 AM »

Why is a Church, any Church, autocephalous?

I would almost argue that none of the Churches are truly "autocephalous."  The difference between autocephaly and autonomy is the election of the president of the synod; however, that election must be ratified by the other autocephalous churches - if it is not, then what is the use of electing your own head, only to be out of communion with the Church?  If it is (the election ratified), then it in a sense had to be indeed approved by all the foreign patriarchates and archdiocese (foreign to the ones holding the election).

Yes, I see where that is going.  Care to explain, then, why Constatinople "ratified" Poland's election of her head in 1924, when the Mother Church of Russia didn't until 1948?

Rome didn't ratify Constantinople's autocephaly until 1217 i.e. after she had obliterated it.  Care to explain about the "all" part?

As to the rest of the recent posts, if I have time, I'll get out the canons on the primates rights, responsibilities, duties, etc.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2009, 11:04:12 AM »

Yes, I see where that is going.  Care to explain, then, why Constatinople "ratified" Poland's election of her head in 1924, when the Mother Church of Russia didn't until 1948?

Don't know.  Guess I should find out.

Rome didn't ratify Constantinople's autocephaly until 1217 i.e. after she had obliterated it.  Care to explain about the "all" part?

Ratified by all doesn't mean 100% assent; and it seems a bit hyperbolic to assert that Rome didn't recognize an "autocephaly" (I still maintain that it's a different thing pre-11th Century) of Constantinople; the evidence only points to them not recognizing the lofty position attributed to it by the Ecumenical Councils - not an outright denial of freedom.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2009, 09:40:23 AM »

It may be not out of place to post a list of those, past and present, who have claimed autocephaly.

The bishop/patriarch of Jerusalem.

...

So it seems the primacy of the Desposyni extened to their race, the Hebrews.

You've just argued a claim to primacy within a certain geographical region.  How are primacy and autocephaly synonymous?  I just don't see the connection. Huh 

Actually I haven't argued the claim of primacy within a certain geographical region.  But I am about to.  I had intended to go on to argue what was irreducible about Jerusalem's pirmacy, and hence here autocephaly.

One thing I'll deal with this something I posted elsewhere:
In the Apostolic Constitutions (3-4th cent) it states:

Quote
XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later]   upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul   and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.   Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois;  and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus.Of Colossæ, Philemon.  Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon.Of the churches of Galatia,    Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.viii.iv.html

Now notice, there is a multiple of Apostolic centers.  Note too, that some of the sees are explicitely mentioned, including Rome, as having successor bishops ordained by different Apostles (fitting, as the episcopacy is an ontological whole).  Such multimplicity fits the image St. Iranaeus gives of the Apostolic succession.  Note too, the order: it is not in the order of primacy.The Pentarcy was of Ecclesiastical, not Divine nor Apostolic origin.  Rather than saying that the Universal Church was administered by three sees (note, it doesn't say "presided over by three sees," I suspect as to not put Alexandria or Antioch in Rome's alleged league), history would say that these three sees dominated the Universal Church.

Unfortunately, I'm going to run out of break time before I finish, but I will start here.  As I said, a work in progress.

The issue here is the canonical history of the Church's hierarchy and the autocephalous Churches.  The importance of this quote is the historical accuracy of what it portrays (although it is corroborated enough for our puruposes here), but that it is the history that the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils were working under (implicitely it seems at Nicea I and Constantinople II, explicitely at Quinsext, c. II
Quote
Canon II.

It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders.  And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement

ooops, gotta go

to be continued....
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 09:42:44 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: autocephaly 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.261 seconds with 71 queries.