The role of the Constantinople Patriarchate in granting autocephaly

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yesterday during a conversation someone made the assertion that any major change in canonical status of a part of the Orthodox church must be blessed by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The person then went on to assert that it is an absolute principle of Orthodox ecclesiology that autocephaly can only be properly granted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In other words even if one obtains autonomous or autocephalous status from the Mother church- to be canonically 'effective' or proper this autocephaly must be accepted by Constaninople.

I was a bit shocked to hear this idea- and honestly I had never heard this idea expressed in such a categorical way before. But neither of these are good reasons why this idea is wrong- if it is.

Could anyone explain why this idea is incorrect or not both on the level of Orthodox ecclesiology and on historical precedent- the person used examples of precedent; eg Constantinople did not accept the OCA's autocephaly. I tried to point out that from my understanding Constantinople's non acceptance of the OCA autocephaly was based not on the notion that all autocephaly to be valid needed the blessing of Constaninople. Rather it was based on the idea that Constaninople is the only rightful Mother Church in the dispora (defined in the broadest terms).

I think such an idea of the absolute need for Constantinople's blessing is wrong and not borne out so clearly from historical precedent- and anyway the latter point doesn't actually prove the former. But what would others say about this from an ecclesiological perspective.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Vasilis Kirikos]

Stated Washington

"Patriarchate Is Ecumenical"
06 Dec 2005 09:51:00

By Betty Savourdou
Issuing a written statement, Washington adopted a clear position in favour of the Patriarchate’s Ecumenicalism. The State Department issued the statement answering to a question posed to deputy spokesman Adam Ereli on Monday during a Press Briefing. The statement reads, "The U.S. considers Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to be a religious leader of global standing. The U.S. takes very seriously the issue of religious freedom in Turkey, as illustrated in the 2005 International Religious Freedom Report."

It also added, "Among specific concerns highlighted in the report are issues related to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, including the reopening of the Halki Seminary, as well as issues related to other religious minorities in Turkey."

The State Department statement underlined, " The U.S. has consistently raised our concerns regarding the Ecumenical Patriarchate with Turkish authorities at the highest levels for many years," and set two recent examples. The first example is that President Bush "urged the re-opening of Halki Seminary in his June meeting with Prime Minister Erdogan," and the second example is that Under Secretary Karen Hughes "discussed this issue with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew during her visit to Istanbul in September."

[Alec Lowly]

Yes, frankly, there's a strong whiff of papalism in the idea that Constantinople is the fons et origo of canonicity.
A.L.

[Alex Haig]

It seems clear to me that the OCA is fully autocephalous, the question is whether this is canonical. Perhaps it is the case that for a Church to be canonically autocephalous then its Metropolitan need be entered into the diptychs of all the Autocephalous Churches of the world, ie entering fully into the Catholic Church?

With love in Christ

Alex

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

At one time clergy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople would not concelebrate with those from the OCA over this question; this continued longer in Canada than in America. Even though concelebration between the two churches now occurs the Patriarchate still does not accept the OCA's autocephaly.

I have never heard before yesterday though the idea that autocephaly- or for that matter any major change in canonical status of a particular church- to be canonically correct must be blessed by Constantinople.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Anthony]

I think that at one point Greek (I should say EP) clergy in Britain were also forbidden to concelebrate with priests of the Moscow Patriarchate. I don't know whether it is still the case. But this would perhaps support Fr Raphael's suggestion that it is the EP's primacy in the diaspora that is at issue.

I have been thinking about this quite often in connection with the missions, particularly in East Asia where Russians have been active for generations but (if I understand correctly), the EP has recently appointed a Metropolitan in Hong Kong to take all missionary work under his care. Does the EP, for example, recognize the Japanese Orthodox Church?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I just spoke with a senior priest of our church (Rocor) who was recently in Constantinople as part of a delegation meeting with the Patriarch. He says that at no point from either rocor's side or Constantinople was there even the hint that rocor needed the blessing of Constaninople in connection with our change in status in regards to the Moscow Patriarchate. What was implicitly accepted was that this was an internal affair of the Russian church.

This is interesting for it shows that Constantinople is not the final arbiter (and it seems it does not see itself in such a way) when it comes to the canonical status of a church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[John P. Nasou]

There is much in the history of the Orthodox Church to explain the = status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Initially there was no = significance in the Christian church of pagan Byzantium, nor was there = any importance to the Bishop of early Constantinople. There was gradual = development as the title was changed to Archbishop and his physical = closeness to the Basileus increased his importance, resulting in the = eventual creation of the patriarchate by the Second Ecumenical Council = despite the protests of Alexandria and Rome. The term ecumenical was not = adopted until much later, and this resulted in the primacy of = Constantinople in the east much to the resentment of the Patriarchs of = Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. Following the fall of the eastern = patriarchates to the Moslem Arabs, these were no longer controlled by = either the Ecumenical Patriarch, nor the Basileus, nor could heresies be = controlled by suppressive actions. Following the fall of Constantinople = to the Ottoman Turks, their status once again changed. The Sultans made = the Patriarch of Constantinople responsible for and governor of all the = Christian millet. Once again the resentment of the other patriarchates = arose, though the Constantinopolitan Patriarchs had no way of shirking = this enforced duty which often resulted in their decapitation when there = was any Christian disorder. Throughout all these changes in status, many = rules and regulations were established by conquerors and the conquered = which have been resurrected whenever it served the purpose of any = particular Patriarch. The current item for discussion is only one = example of these rules. - Read for more in Alexander Schmemann's The = Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, and John Meyendorff's Byzantine =

[Alex Haig]

Re Anthony's post #88, a few years ago the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow excommunicated each other for about 6 months. I don't think that this has any bearing on the issue in this thread but it does show the failure on both parts to show Christ like love and humility.

With love in Christ

Alex

PS, it wasn't just EP and MP priests in Britain affected but everywhere - I'm not quite sure what the Oxford parishes did as they (one EP one MP) share a Church and have services in common.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Alex,

My memory is vague here (and I heartily invite more learned clarification and correction), but I seem to recall that the issue to which you referwas not one of the two patriarchates directly confronting one another, but of relations with a third community that were interrupted with one of these two (I believe it was the Greek side), which had implications for communion between them until the matter with the third group was resolved.

That's about as vague a remembrance as could possibility be uttered!

INXC, Matthew

[Alex Haig]

This is vague memory but as far as I can remember the issue was due to a former Soviet-block country's Church moving to be under the Ecumenical Patriarchate (from Moscow), but there was definitely an ex-communication that was in effect for 6 months or so.

With love in Christ

Alex